Gizmodo 
Enter your username and password.
Tip your editors:
tips@gizmodo.com
Editorial Director:
Brian Lam | Email | Twitter
Editor:
Jason Chen
Email | AIM | Twitter
Features Editor:
Wilson Rothman
Email | Twitter
Senior Contributing Editor:
Jesus Diaz
Email | AIM | Twitter
Mark Wilson, Reviews
Email | AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Matt Buchanan
Email | AIM | Twitter
Adam Frucci
Email | Twitter
Sean Fallon
Email | Twitter
Jack Loftus
Email | Twitter
John Herrman
Email | Twitter
Dan Nosowitz
Email
Chris Mascari
Email
Danny Allen
Email | Twitter
Columnist:
Brendan I. Koerner
Interns:
Don Nguyen
Email
Chris Jacob
Email
Comment Intern:
Nick Ellenoff | Email
Comment Account Questions:
Comments@gizmodo.com
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
11/09/09
Then you have to listen to it tell bad jokes for a few years. #neurogrid
11/09/09
11/09/09
11/09/09
11/09/09
11/09/09
11/09/09
I suddenly now have a new excuse for EVERYTHING! #neurogrid
11/09/09
11/09/09
Kwabena Boahen, a computer scientist at Stanford University, believes that it would require 10 megawatts to power a processor as smart as the human brain. His new "Neurogrid" supercomputer might be able to do it on only 20 watts. #neurogrid
11/09/09
11/09/09
11/09/09
@Erix_Cale: I prefer The Foreigner!
"I'm not from here! I have my own customs! Look at my craaaaaazy passport!" #neurogrid
11/09/09
11/09/09
11/09/09
10/30/09
10/30/09
10/30/09
10/30/09
i never recommend any drug to anyone, just as i never recommend that people free climb redwood trees, or attempt to skateboard 35mph. That does NOT mean that such activities should be illegal. drugs are dangerous when their power is not respected. as for LSD being dangerous, it's only dangerous in that in an impaired state, you could harm yourself or others - hey, kind of like alcohol, minus alcohol toxicity!
by declaring that you believe that these drugs should be illegal, you are saying that you condone the incarceration of those who produce, sell, or imbibe such drugs. You sir, then, are a hypocrite if you do not immediately turn yourself in. #brainondrugs
10/30/09
10/30/09
seriously. a half dozen times? lets see, if you had been caught every time, you'd be in jail for about 20 years total.
would society be better off if you were in jail for 20 years? would your family? would you?
if you wouldn't inflict it upon yourself, then you have no right to inflict it upon others. #brainondrugs
10/30/09
And I don't support laws that incarcerate drug users for posession. Dealers, that's a different story.
10/30/09
ah so the guy who sold it to you should go to jail, not you. How convenient for you and unfortunate for him. I wonder what he would think about you if he knew that, after he's risked his livelihood in order to give you a good time, you'll eventually come to the conclusion that he ought to be locked up in a cage for doing so.
also, you came to the conclusion that it is dangerous FOR YOU. your experience is purely subjective, and while not wildly atypical by any means, still has absolutely no relevance to the experience of others.
your position is you'd like it to be illegal so that it is difficult to acquire, not so much that those who do acquire it need to be punished. you are advocating that the state protect people from themselves.
why, then, are you not on a crusade to outlaw, say, motorcycles? many more people kill themselves and others with motorcycles than do with LSD. they can just buy safe cars, after all.
fine, maybe in your case you aren't being a hypocrite. but you certainly are being arrogant as hell to assert that, because you had some unpleasant experience with it, that others shouldn't even get the chance, or the freedom, to find out for themselves. #brainondrugs
10/30/09
10/30/09
it's hypocritical to have an experience, see 'the error of ones ways' and then promote a system that disallows other people the same opportunity.
J_Frank got the opportunity to try something and then make a personal judgement call for himself, based on his experience. to deny others the same opportunity is hypocritical. to assert that because his ultimate conclusion is that it is not a good thing for him, others should not even be able to try it, as he did a half dozen times, is arrogant and condescending.
he is not a hypocrite if all he is doing is saying 'hey, i tried this, and i'm warning you, it turned out bad for me a few times, and i highly recommend that you do not even try it'. But that is not what he is doing. he is advocating that the state use force and incarceration to keep people from having a choice in the matter.
so when you say "That's akin to saying parents are hypocrites for telling their children not to make the same mistakes they did." you are incorrect. parents don't try to have unprotected sex made illegal, they simply warn against it. that does not make them hypocrites because they are still allowing for the possibility that their advice will be ignored.
furthermore, he is insisting that he himself is somehow an exception to the laws he advocates. that reeks of an inherent distrust of his fellow human beings ability to make their own choices - something he seems to trust himself to do, but oh no, not the others. #brainondrugs
10/30/09
I think your motocycle argument is BS, because:
1. I ride a motorcycle ;)
2. Motorcycle usage does not alter your perception of reality in unpredictable ways
I think the state does have some responsibility to protect people from powerful, unregulated psychotropic drugs, yes. #brainondrugs
10/30/09
it's no different than a guy who can't put the bottle down, who drinks himself into oblivion, whose life gets out of control as a result, who sobers up and goes on to advocate the prohibition of alcohol. if all he were doing is saying 'alcohol is an evil in my opinion and i highly suggest that you do not mess with it' then he is not a hypocrite. but if he says 'alcohol is an evil in my opinion and i want the government to jail those who produce it' then he IS a hypocrite. A well-meaning hypocrite, but a hypocrite nonetheless. #brainondrugs
10/30/09
then WARN people, don't support the state INCARCERATING people.
as for motorcycles, you're missing the point: the point is that motorcycles are unnecessary, and dangerous to both the rider and those around him. the statistics don't lie. LSD is, in your opinion, unnecessary and dangerous to the tripper and those around him, but results in far fewer deaths/injuries than motorcycles do.
if your primary interest is in protecting people from self harm, you must treat all forms of potential self harm equally based on how dangerous they really are.
and that's the flaw in everything you're saying - there does not exist a consistent set of principles that allows motorcycles but outlaws LSD. there is no way to encompass both opinions in a way that can be extrapolated from logical reasoning, and which doesn't contradict itself. #brainondrugs
10/30/09
No! they are only arrogant hypocrites when they assert that their experience should be the basis for governing anyones life except their own, and that such governance should be implemented by the use of violence, force, and incarceration. When they are simply warning others, they are attempting to help other human beings make good choices (which is 100% admirable and awesome) while simultaneously respecting other peoples autonomy.
10/30/09
"People are free to ignore me if they don't agree."
but what you're advocating is that they NOT be free to disagree with you, at least not in practice. sure as an intellectual exercise they are free to disagree with your opinion, but if they actually want to act on that disagreement, you want men with guns to break into their house and lock them up. #brainondrugs
10/30/09
"I think your motocycle argument is BS, because:
1. I ride a motorcycle ;)"
here it is again with you taking your experience and deciding that because it's ok for you, it's ok for everyone, just as when things are not ok for you, you want the government to step in and keep them from being anything unlike you.
what if someone less skilled than you, or hundreds of people less skilled than you, had horrible motorcycle experiences and somehow got them outlawed?
you'd say to yourself, 'well those people are obviously retards who didn't use the motorcycle in a proper and responsible manner, who didn't understand the risks and who made poor choices - why should i be punished because these other people can't handle it? i can handle it, i'm a safe rider. #brainondrugs
10/30/09
We live in a nation of laws, just and unjust. If you feel that laws against psychotropic drugs are unjust you can campaign to have it changed. Marijuana supporters are starting to have reasonable success in doing so.
If I could boil my original post down to one statement, it would be
Don't do what I did. #brainondrugs
10/30/09
and if i could boil down your entire opinion into one statement, it would be
If you do what I did, I want you, but not me, to be locked up, for your own good. #brainondrugs
10/30/09
also thanks for not addressing even one of my arguments. that's good debating when you just keep coming back to 'well i just feel this way about it without any logical reasoning or regard for other peoples autonomy so that's the way it should be'. #brainondrugs
10/30/09
"If you feel that laws against psychotropic drugs are unjust you can campaign to have it changed."
you're under the mistaken impression that injustice is ok until the majority opposes and acts on it - that is, your allowing the majority to decide what is and is not unjust. you know what that is? that's two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. #brainondrugs
10/30/09
Majority does to a large extent decide what the law is in a democracy. But courts are there to overturn unjust laws if you can demonstrate why they're unjust (and that doesn't need a majority to do, just an organized lobbying group)
LSD is illegal because there are reems of scientific research to demonstrate that it's a powerful, unpredictable psychotropic drug that is not well suited for recreational use. Every country in the world thinks so. Show me how the illegality of recreational LSD is unjust, please. #brainondrugs
10/30/09
10/30/09
The illegality of ANY substance is unjust because it undermines the fundamental principle that we own ourselves. IF I DO NOT OWN MYSELF THEN SOMEONE ELSE OR SOME GROUP OF PEOPLE DOES. If someone else owns me, what does that make me? That makes me a slave.
I am free, under the law, to ride motorcycles, jump out of airplanes, and hit myself in the face with a stick. All of these things put me in physical danger, and in some cases, puts other people in danger. I am allowed to drink a fifth of vodka and go base jumping. Or swimming. Or bear hunting.
all of these things are, in my opinion, not good ideas, and so i myself will not be participating in them. i would warn others to also refrain from such activities. but to use the threat of violence and the initiation of force to coerce others to agree with me is to make those people my slaves. it is to say that my opinion negates your right to own yourself. and i hope we can agree that rights are much more important and sacred than opinions are, regardless of how reasonable or well-meaning those opinions are.
your life will be better if you educate yourself and work hard - should we outlaw ignorance and laziness? you will be healthier if you do not consume shitty food. should we outlaw bacon?
there are many choices which are wise - eating healthily, for example. should we FORCE people to eat healthily? i say no, and here's why: there is no virtue, there is no value in being forced to do the right thing. the admirable part about making good choices is that you CHOSE - you could have made a bad choice and nothing would have stopped you, but you had the discipline to make a good choice. it's the entire theme of A Clockwork Orange if you'll recall, that once a man ceases to be able to choose, he is no longer a man, his actions are without integrity or virtue if he does not have the ability to NOT make the better choice.
if you find a wallet, and return it to its owner, that is admirable. if you find a wallet and are then forced to return it, your action is not admirable. its the very fact that you COULD have chosen to keep it that makes the choice to return it a virtuous one. the exact same end result can either be virtuous or without virtue depending on the series of event that led up to that result.
if a man sees a woman being raped and he shoots and kills the rapist, he has done something good. if a thief tries to rob someone who just happens to be a rapist and ends up shooting and killing the rapist, that's murder and it's morally reprehensible.
in both cases the world was rid of a rapist. and yet one is just, and the other is unjust.
and that's the thing - everything i've talked about today is consistent. the principles upon which my arguments stand hold up in ANY situation. your position picks and chooses and makes exceptions and has loopholes and logical fallacies. It does not matter if your system has a RESULT that is better than the result of my system - it is achieving that result by trampling on peoples individual liberties, and is therefor unjust. the ends do NOT justify the means. we could have ZERO crime go unpunished with 100% surveillance saturation. is that the world you want to live in? more importantly, can you justify such a totalitarian state simply because the RESULT is preferable to the alternative? #brainondrugs
10/30/09
10/30/09
IT DOESN'T MATTER that drugs are, in general, 'bad' for you. Fatty foods are bad for you. Should we incarcerate those who eat themselves into obesity? the larger question: does it make sense to attempt to deal with peoples propensity to abuse themselves by locking them up? and, if so, is it even possible to enforce such a mandate without violating peoples fundamental right to own themselves?
"If you're a believer, find God through a real means, not chemical illusions. "
...said a guy who is obviously completely ignorant of brain chemistry, or spiritual history.
are you saying that the Native Americans spiritual beliefs are invalid because of the influence that hallucinogenic substances had on them? What about the Rastafarians? #brainondrugs
10/30/09
"It's great if you are apt enough to not let yourself fall too deeply into it, but that simply isn't the case most of the time."
Bullshit. the vast, vast majority of drug users do so in a responsible manner that violates nobodies rights. #brainondrugs
10/30/09
As for my parent's example, you only presented one counterexample. There are parents that have had abortions, and fight to make it illegal. Maybe they think, if they make it illegal, the newer generations won't have to suffer how they did(please note I am not presenting a stance on abortion, just an example). A parent might do similarly with certain drugs, because they don't want the children to make the same "mistake".
I take a bit of issue with your arguments because you seem to be needlessly "attacking" JFP. Like, the problem is, you are insinuating he is trying to outlaw LSD. He isn't. It already IS outlawed, and has been since he did it.
"it's hypocritical to have an experience, see 'the error of ones ways' and then promote a system that disallows other people the same opportunity."
This is where I believe your argument fails: He is not promoting a system that disallows other people the same opportunity. Since LSD has been illegal for over 40 years, and I doubt JFP is much older than that, the people who do LSD today have the same exact opportunity he did when he did it. LSD is still available undergound. ALL he is saying is that people shouldn't be given even more opportunity to try it by making it legal. He is doing precisely what you said, warning people against it and suggesting LSD shouldn't be legalized, therefore opening the door for many more people to try it than when he did.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but based on your phrasing and exhibits, you seem to be insinuating LSD SHOULD be made legal(I'm not trying to yell or be rude, caps are just for emphasis, seeing as there are no itallics in the giz comment system =P). And maybe it should, I don't know. But all JFP is really doing is warning against its usage.
I mean if anything JFP is promoting more freedom than there was when he did it, so it makes no sense to me that you call him a hypocrite.
Legality of LSD when JFP did it: -Illegal to deal and possess.
Legality today:
-Illegal to deal and possess.
Legality JFP proposes:
-Illegal to deal but not necesarily to possess.
So once more, he isn't denying anyone the opportunity he had because LSD has been illegal forever now. If LSD were legal when he did and still was today, and he suggests that it should be made illegal, then it would make sense to call him a hypocrite. But seeing as it hasn't been legal to possess for 40 years and he is simply saying it should stay that way so that the drug isn't even more easily accessible, it makes no sense to accuse him of hypocrisy.
Finally, though I dislike a hypocrite like anyone else, what matters is what's right and what's wrong really, not whether you're being a hypocrite or not. Let's assume motorcycles and alcohol actually are more dangerous than LSD. But that doesn't mean LSD should be legalized just to not be a hypocrite. #brainondrugs
10/30/09
I wrote this in my long reply to one of your previous posts, but I assume you haven't read that yet. Anyways basically, two wrongs don't make a right, I explain it more elaborately in my other post.
Also, I often here the example with obesity, but I never quite got it. I think the general idea is that drugs alter one more psychologically, and usually have a risk of affecting the ones around you. Obesity, not so much. I guess it's debatable, but I don't see it so.
My argument of "find god through a real means, not chemical illusions" was perhaps bombastic, but it's what I believe. It's not a biconditional either. I was saying nothing about the native americans. I'm not negating their spiritual beliefs, but do I think they could have found spirituality without the use of drugs? Yes. Furthermore, it doesn't make sense to bring them into this argument because they didn't have concrete proof about what exactly peyote and other drugs did when they used them.
Unless you are talking about modern day native americans, in which case well, yea, I don't think the usage of hallucinogens is the best way to find spirituality, no i don't. And heck, I'm not even religious.
What exactly are you referring to about my lack of knowledge of brain chemistry? Because I know more than the average person, I'm quite sure. #brainondrugs
10/30/09
Do you have statistics for that? You're right though, I shouldn't have said most of the time, since I have no proof of that either. I've seen a lot of people fall though and be impacted negatively by drug usage though, and I guess that's where my thoughts are stemming from, though they were admittedly so accurate. I never talked about violating anybody's rights though. When i say fall too deeply i mean allowing it to have a negative impact on your life, which to me it seems like it happens a lot, but I don't have anything to back it up. I'd be surprised if you did to back up your argument for this case though. #brainondrugs
10/30/09
"But seeing as it hasn't been legal to possess for 40 years and he is simply saying it should stay that way so that the drug isn't even more easily accessible, it makes no sense to accuse him of hypocrisy."
yes, it does. supporting something being illegal is the same whether or not it is currently legal. supporting something being illegal that you yourself have done, while at the same time being unwilling to submit to incarceration for YOUR 'crimes' is hypocrisy. he says he prefers a world where, ideally, he himself would be in prison.
"So once more, he isn't denying anyone the opportunity he had because LSD has been illegal forever now."
it being illegal means that, in order to try it, one has to risk having their whole life destroyed if they get caught. just because the opportunity/risk is the same now doesn't justify his support of it.
let me put it this way - any law that is just is one that, if all instances of the breaking of that law could be enforced, no one would suffer MORE than they would if that law was NOT enforced.
if more suffering is caused by the enforcement of a law than is caused by the crime, it's obvious that the law is unjust.
if everyone who ever took LSD got caught moments before taking it, do you think the world would be a better place? because it's unrighteous to promote the existence of a law without promoting the enforcement of the law. #brainondrugs
10/30/09
"yes, it does. supporting something being illegal is the same whether or not it is currently legal. supporting something being illegal that you yourself have done, while at the same time being unwilling to submit to incarceration for YOUR 'crimes' is hypocrisy. he says he prefers a world where, ideally, he himself would be in prison."
Based on this I'm going to assume you'd rather LSD be legal, since that's what it seems to imply. Not saying that in a derogatory manner, but just because you haven't said so clearly. I disagree. I assume he is supporting it being illegal not because of hypocrisy, but because making it legal makes it much easier for many to experience what he believes to be a bad thing, it puts more people at risk. I see nothing wrong with that. What you are essentially saying is that he should say "I did LSD, and I wouldn't recommend it to anyone[which is what he said]. But it still should be made legal!" Like, how exactly does it make sense for him to say that?
That's like saying everyone who ever sped on the road, but doesn't think the speed limit should be raised for safety reasons should turn themselves in and ask to be fined. I don't think that makes sense, nor do I think accepting the law's punishment is the only way to make amends and pay for past mistakes. If you got a break and weren't caught, as I believe is the case with most drug users, then make something good out of that. Putting yourself in jail does absolutely no one any good. Plus, I don't think he can actually just go and turn himself in for doing LSD in the past, but idk lol. Hypocrisy I think would be not admitting to the crimes.
I think the law punishment is also there to serve as a warning for others. Whether or not that aspect of the law is the right thing is another question, but it does serve as a fear mechanism to prevent others from doing LSD.
"it being illegal means that, in order to try it, one has to risk having their whole life destroyed if they get caught. just because the opportunity/risk is the same now doesn't justify his support of it."
But that's the thing. It seems to be generally agreed on that LSD is more bad than good, though of course many will disagree. People are risking their lives for something that is dangerous(yes people do that for other things to, but forget those for now). The reason it's made illegal is so less people will getinto it or be more easily tempted by curiosity. I don't believe in the argument that less people would try eventually try if it were legal.
"if more suffering is caused by the enforcement of a law than is caused by the crime, it's obvious that the law is unjust."
I actually never seriously thought of it that way, and this is a very good point. However, I don't see how making drug legal would make things better. In other words, I don't see how the enforcement of the law causes more pain. I couldn't find stats on it, but I get the feeling that the large majority of the people who do LSD don't get caught. If LSD were illegal, I do think it would cause more pain. I could be wrong, but that's the way it seems to me.
"if everyone who ever took LSD got caught moments before taking it, do you think the world would be a better place? because it's unrighteous to promote the existence of a law without promoting the enforcement of the law."
Well thing is, the gov doesn't actually go looking around for those in posession of LSD, it looks for the dealers and traffickers. If you happen to be caught possessing it, well then, sucks for you.
Furthermore, do you think a world where LSD were totally #brainondrugs
10/30/09
Truth be known, the clean stuff was really boring, I liked the stuff with strychnine and meth mixed in. #brainondrugs
10/30/09
Historically, strychnine has been used as a "punishment" poison. It breaks your body with uncontrollable muscle spasms and makes you so sensitive that the slightest sensory input is overwhelmingly painful for a few hours. It only lasts that long because after that, you're dead.
I'm aware that it used to be used medically in non-lethal doses. I also have no interest whatsoever in exposing my body to that stuff, so the one time I was offered "strychnine acid" I politely declined. #brainondrugs
10/30/09
one cannot pack enough strychnine, meth, or any other substance onto a square of paper or a drop of liquid that could possible have any significant negative physiological effect on an adult human being. first of all, if i recall from my wilder days, methamphetamine has a very powerful, distinctive taste, as does strychnine. if you can't taste it, it isn't there. #brainondrugs
10/30/09