Hacker News Reader

It would be suicidal to challenge driving, since it is going against the current mob mentality on HN and elsewhere, but I am going to do just that. In my personal experience: - I think driving should be legal, but only allowed when you really need to get somewhere.

- Driving takes away precious exercise that you otherwise would have gotten walking.

- Driving is addicting, even though people say it's not. I can no longer resist the urge to visit Tesco on a regular basis.

- Driving is a nuisance on streets, apartments, etc. Gas and smog has such a potent smell, it is impossible to get rid of. I would say that it has 100x power of smell than perfumes, probably even more. You can even smell exhaust in your car if you're parked somewhere.

- The risk of crashing, it's undeniable.

- Driving is irresponsible since it also may inspire people to want to fly a plane, which is more dangerous and therefore bad.

It's time we make driving uncool. It's toxic to the society. I welcome counterpoints and discussion, just being honest about how I see the driving culture. I've been there and done that for 2 years straight in college. Roommate had a big van.

Hah, you clearly put a lot of effort into this. Upvoted.

"Marijuana destroys personal ambition, productivity and self-esteem."

It would be very eye opening if you could build a case for this being so, apart from saying that's been the case in your experience and that of your friends/acquaintances.

Have there been any research showing this is the case? If so, how large/good are those studies? What's the scientific consensus on this issue?

As far as I know there's very little research in this area, so most of what we have to go on are anecdotes.

"Marijuana is addicting even though people say its not. It is much easier to quit than Tobacco, but denying that its not addicting is not true in my experience."

But many other things are addictive in the same way -- like food, sex, sports, video games, etc... and addiction to any of those could lead to very severe consequences. Would you say it's time to make food, sex, sports, or video games uncool?

I'm also wondering why we should be focusing on cannabis when alcohol is way, way worse, and whose use is far more widespread.

"Marijuana is a nuisance on streets, apartments, etc. It has such a potent smell, it is impossible to get rid of. I would say it has 100x power of smell than perfumes, probably even more. You can smell Marijuana in your car if someone on the road is smoking it."

I like the smell of most cannabis strains, though some are unpleasant. Tobacco smell is way worse for me. Also, when vaping there's almost no smell at all. In any case, I hope there is social pressure not to smoke indoors where people who don't like the smell might be present, like on subways. That's pretty rude.

"Lung damage, it's undeniable."

You can eat it, and when smoking it you could run it through water to take out some of the impurities and/or vape it, which helps too.

"Marijuana is a gateway drug"

Not sure what to say to this. Some people are going to experiment with drugs. If they don't start with cannabis they'll start with something else, whether alcohol (which is way worse), some "bath salts" (which are usually some random novel designer drugs of unknown toxicity or known to be more toxic) or whatever. You're not going to keep these people from experimenting by making pot "uncool".

You do realize you can vape flower/concentrate and eat edibles, right?

>Marijuana is a gateway drug, I strongly believe this but open for changing my mind if there is data supporting otherwise.

The burden of proof is on you to show this. What you strongly feel doesn't matter.

The "gateway drug" assertion isn't an "all or nothing" issue. There's nuance to it.

Does that mean, smoke weed and you'll automatically end up using other drugs? No.

Correlation != causation. The idea of a 'gateway' drug is absurd.

The simplest explanation is that people with mental illness or trauma will self medicate. So given that, it makes sense that the easiest to acquire/least scary drugs would be the first used. I bet even more people got started on alcohol as their first 'treatment'. That doesn't make it a gateway drug.

Here is one study that shows the discrepancy of how "outsiders" think about Marijuana as a gateway drug vs. "insiders":

> Marijuana is often referred to as a gateway drug due to its placement in the stage-like progression of drug use (Kandel, 2002; Zimmer & Morgan, 1997). This study examines the gateway drug concept from an insiders' perspective. Qualitative, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 51 current and former users of marijuana. Data were collected between 2000 and 2002. Data on drug histories and perceptions about marijuana as a gateway drug were analyzed. While 80.3% (n = 41) of participants initiated their drug use experiences with alcohol or tobacco, one-third (n = 15) used an illicit drug other than marijuana prior to initiating marijuana. The adults in this study varied with regard to their perceptions about whether or not they thought marijuana was a gateway drug. Forty-five percent (n = 23) expressed viewpoints characterized as mixed or conflicting, 35% (n = 18) did not support the idea that marijuana was a gateway drug, and 19.6% (n = 10) strongly supported the notion.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/humjsocrel.35.5

That's true, I think Vaping is still not that healthy for your lungs.

Fair enough about burden of proof. I found one that supports and one that opposes the argument:

Kind of supporting, it says it is complex to evaluate the gateway hypothesis: https://doi.org/10.1080/09595230500126698

Opposing: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11292-021-09464-z