alt Hacker News> because they were often in the context of legalization. "I know someone who went crazy after trying $foo so we should still lock people into iron cages just for the crime of possessing it."
I think that’s what people thought when reading negative anecdotes, but I definitely didn’t see a lot of suggestions that we lock people up.
The same thing happened for marijuana: Any mention of negative effects would bring downvotes, scorn, and disbelief pre-legalization. Then once it was legal it became acceptable to say that marijuana wasn’t a panacea and using a lot of it was actually a problem.
Before this change, it was common to read highly upvoted anecdotes here and on Reddit claiming everything from medicinal properties to fixing depression to improving driving skills (an actual claim I saw here and on Reddit multiple times). Now it’s widely acceptable that frequent marijuana use is not good for mental health and wellbeing, but that was once a thing you could not say on the internet.
> definitely didn’t see a lot of suggestions that we lock people up.
Nobody had to suggest that, it was the law of the land already. Hyperbolic argument is hyperbolic ("iron cages" was a bit of a tip-off) but consequences short of imprisonment were typically some other state-run means of destroying one's career, family, and/or life. Pointing out that this isn't a good thing and isn't actually working somehow made you into The Enemy Of Decency. And while there's still lots of Drug Warriors out there who still think that way, I'm encouraged at the increasing avenues for actually productive discussion. Seems to be the one politically-charged topic that isn't getting more toxic these days.