A case is being made regarding relative punishments. I find this is an entirely appropriate time and location to bring this argument, given that the main criteria for comments is that they are substantive and contribute. I think this one contributes by starting an interesting side conversation, which are in my opinion one of the best parts of HN.

If you don't want to take part, just click the [-] to collapse the thread and ignore it. If you take issue with the actual content of the comment, a bit more information on why you think it has nothing to do with a case where a high placed executive might face relatively minor punishment for, as the GP puts it, getting "thousands addicted to your drug, take their money, ruin their families for years and eventually take their lives." might help clarify that stance.

Should I choose some other crime to compare it to? Ok, how about the fact that possessing this guy's drug without a prescription would land a white guy in jail faster than Kapoor's going to get there for peddling it to hundreds of thousands of people?

You don't need to get hung up on the crime that I'm juxtaposing it with. Just notice the gulf between some types of justice and others.

There are so many new faces in this thread and they all want to refocus the conversation on other hot button topics. Why is this?