Hacker News Reader

Comment by forgotpwtomain | Hacker News Reader

> That database must be a wet dream for law enforcement.

Because obviously people buying a few pills of ecstasy or a tab of LSD are a serious danger to society and should be taken of the streets. /s

View on HN

Because the police will totally arrest every single user and not focus on the high-volume buyers / sellers. /s

Until you look at an officer the wrong way. Or their friend. Or someone else with the ear of the boys in blue.

This is a confusing statement since you /s

You don't need a address to send mail - sellers.

Personal use can be huge amounts - buyers

I can't see many dealers using dark markets above plausible personal use amounts since you get caught importing dealable quantities you are screwed, dark market or not (And the mail system will get a % of buyers). You might have a $1000 per week habit or be a $1000 per week dealer. Who's to say?

I do not think it's really that clear.

Sometimes the state apparatus is precisely the one committing the most heinous crimes. (with impunity!)

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_CIA_drug_traffi...

> http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB2/index.html

> Because obviously people buying a few pills of ecstasy or a tab of LSD are a serious danger to society and should be taken of the streets. /s

Because obviously it's impossible to express that one party might have viewed an outcome as favorable without agreeing with that view. /s

Well given that this party is funded by taxpayers, for the purported benefit of said taxpayers and their society; I do think its problematic that said party would hold such a view.

I have no problem calling out what you believe are unjust laws, but the way you did so implies some agreement with those laws from the commentor you were replying to, as well as some responsibility for those laws existing from the police that carry them out.

Calling out a commentor's statement about the police's state of mind at concluding what was undoubtedly a large project for their department doesn't effectively work as a launchpad into a critique of those responsible for the law when done through terse sarcasm that seems to target the wrong responsible parties.

Not all clients were end-consumers.

You could also order kilograms there.

Obviously.

They fund the ones supplying those drugs which involves a significant harm to society. Just look at people who are unwilling participants in the drug trade or those who receive funds from selling drugs to sell other things such as weapons or even humans.

(Yes, I realize legalizing local drug production and distribution would undercut the market, which is one reason why I am for legalization. But that does not excuse supporting the current cartels.)

I'm aware of the huge criminal activity that goes along with drugs like cocaine, but are ecstasy and LSD makers in the same category?

LSD no. Not enough demand. But I would imagine ecstasy attracts a pretty big criminal element. It's been a popular drug for 30 years

People under influence do indeed pose danger to other people. Even the influence of alcohol is potentially dangerous in certain situations leading to incidents ranging from hit and run to domestic violence.

People with _______ pose a danger to other people. It is incredibly hypocritical to come down on someone for consuming LSD in their own home, but not on someone getting pissed drunk in their own home. Tens of thousands of people are killed by people under the influence of alcohol in the United States. How many people are killed by people under the influence of LSD?

(I have never used drugs, other then alcohol.)

Guns, cars, "homosexual tendencies", etc, etc all fit into that blank.

People with homosexual tendencies pose a danger to other people?

Missing /s?

Even alcohol? Alcohol is the most endangering drug. Because of wide spread use (no competition because in many places it's the only legal drug), addictiveness, toxicity and intrinsic nastiness of influence it has on some users.

Where is it the only legal drug? Nicotine is often regulated but legal nearly everywhere, and I don't think caffeine is banned anywhere.

I get this is (mostly) a tech site, but do we have to argue semantics every time?

I don't think this is a semantic argument. The comment I replied to was making the argument that alcohol use is widespread because it has no legal competition. This does not appear to be the case to me, thus undermining the argument.

If someone gets off work and wants to get loaded to forget about their problems, are they more likely to get a 12-pack of beer or a pack of cigarettes?

Both

You are right about availability of nicotine and caffeine but I'm not sure if you can make an argument that they could compete with alcohol.

I know that caffeine was a bit of competition for alcohol in the period right after it was introduced (some think that enlightenment was caused by this), but I don't think it's like that anymore.

Nicotine and caffeine are drugs but when did you last hear of people crashing cars or killing other people because they were high on nicotine or caffeine. I'm sure it's an ancillary factor and if you could investigate with strict accuracy you'd find they had a non-zero influence. But putting them on the same semantic plane as you are doing implies that people in the grip of a nicotine or caffeine buzz are little different from people who are drunk, and anyone with real-world experience knows that's nonsense. You're not helping your point by reflexively making nitpicking arguments.

I'm pro legalization for all drugs, but but I'm not going to dispute the fact that booze, cocaine, and heroin are just like cannabis, caffeine and nicotine because it just isn't true. If you don't acknowledge the reality of people's experience when making your semantic arguments then people are going to ignore you.

I agree with what you say, but that means alcohol is more damaging because it's more dangerous, not because it has no competition.

I agree 100% with you on the substantive issue.

It's not a semantic argument. It's important to make it plain, before having a reasoned discussion, that there are legal drugs that people use every day but wrongly categorizes as "not drugs." Alcohol, nicotine, and caffeine being the main culprits. Food, exercise, and social media also cause experience-shifting changes in neurotransmitters (the drugs that are always mediating your experience). It's important to get this straight before lumping things that are illegal into a poorly-conceived category.

Air also causes experience shifting changes in body. Think of the last time you went without it. Also thoughts cause multiple experience shifts during the day. Maybe we should start be controlling the air and eliminating thoughts before we get to these bigger things?

Just to set the record straight can you cite where social media causes experience-shifting changes in neurotransmitters?

everything does. it's a question of individual context, individual biology, and what you define as "experience-shifting" + our ability to understand and measure the human brain.

https://www.ama.org/publications/MarketingNews/Pages/feeding...

here's some BS from the AMA, though.

While it is true that there are other substances that could and should be called drugs, it is not conducive to discussion to argue over definitions when it is clear people are talking about drugs colloquially. To bring up coffee serves no purpose other than to derail the comment thread - as it has.

Added sugar

Reply on news.ycombinator.com