Comment by Alex3917 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by Alex3917 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Maybe, maybe not. It's technically illegal to grow or possess any amount of weed, but in practice you don't get prosecuted (by the feds) unless you have over 100 plants or thousands of pounds. Until ~2004 it was illegal for native Americans to be within Boston city limits.

There are thousands of things that are illegal, but in practice are rarely or ever prosecuted, even in cases where people are violating those laws at pretty significant scales.

In my case that's not a risk I'd be willing to take, but I can see why other people would. The reason it's not prosecuted though isn't because of companies, it's because there are lots of wealthy people who travel overseas and then get kidnapped, and the government isn't going to prosecute their families for paying to not have their kids dismembered and the videos posted on YouTube. The reason companies aren't prosecuted is mainly because once you decide not to prosecute families for doing this, then anyone else can make an equal protection argument.

I think you may be writing from a perspective of privilege and in the current civil unrest climate, this may seem a little tone-deaf. We're experiencing nationwide protests because a black person tried to buy cigarettes with a fake $20 bill, and he was murdered.

Perhaps things like your age, gender, and wealth may be insulating you, allowing you to think, "these laws don't actually apply to me", and if they did, you could most likely hire a lawyer and fight it.

Many people in this world cannot. Think about how many people are incarcerated for weed-related "crimes". Just because no one is going to go after YOU for them, doesn't mean that these laws don't serve a purpose to screw over others not so fortunate.

Anyways, not to pick on you specifically - I obviously don't know a whole lot about you, but your reply irked me a bit. Cheers.

The only thing I found out a bit off about the comment was the “equal protection” rationale, which is a bad joke in the US.

The rest seemed spot on: This law is almost exclusively broken by rich folks, so it will never be an enforcement priority.

I specifically said I didn't take the consulting gig because I didn't think it was legal, and I wouldn't ever start a commercial grow op for the same reason. So not sure your comment really follows.

Objectively neither activity is probably super high risk, but I still wouldn't be willing to take on either of those risks myself.

I was specifically commenting on this wide-sweeping generality:

There are thousands of things that are illegal, but in practice are rarely or ever prosecuted, even in cases where people are violating those laws at pretty significant scales.

"rarely or ever prosecuted" for you. You are on the advantageous side of a system that isn't that way on happenstance. Let's take your startup. How easy would it be for a black-owned startup in the US to raise VC funds in comparison to a white-owned startup? How easy is it to get... well any sort of loan if you're a black person, compared to a white person? How many black-owned banks are there that cater specifically to black businesses of any size?

Name three black CEOs.

Now, why is that?

I believe you are tilting at a windmill that doesn't exist. OP specifically stated that they didn't take the job because they didn't think it was worth the risk. OP didn't bring up their background. Do you have some information about him/her that the rest of us don't have that would back up your accusation of privilege?

The perspective that there are “thousands of things that are illegal” but not prosecuted always fascinates me, that’s not at all a common perception e.g. here in Germany. Is that a difference between common law and civil law systems? Maybe in places where code law is mostly binding, there’s a lot more pressure on the legislature to keep the law books up to date with the current norms of society.

In Germany it's currently illegal for someone to leave an escooter outside of a designated parking space. How many of them have you seen just laying around? I know in Mainz I've seen dozens.

Just saying, there's plenty of laws here that aren't prosecuted either.

In Germany it seems as if something is outlawed then it is believed that thing physically can’t be done. In the United States, we take it as a challenge!

Personally I see a big difference in the philosophy of lawmaking in the US vs Germany. Take driving, for instance. In the US, almost anyone who can physically climb behind the driver's seat of a car can get a drivers' license, and indeed having a drivers' license in the US is almost a fundamental right. Speed limits are then set, to first order, to accommodate the fact that you have marginal drivers behind the wheel. In addition, the police can - and do - selectively enforce driving laws. Ideally that power would be used to keep truly bad drivers off the roads, although the current civil unrest in America shows that that selective enforcement is, to put it mildly, abused.

In Germany, the barrier to getting a drivers' license is much higher. More training, more stringent tests. But the effect of that is that drivers are (mostly) assumed to be able to adapt their driving to road conditions; as a consequence, you get unlimited legal driving speeds on part of the German road system. In good weather, traffic permitting.

Of course, there are confounding facts: in my experience the average physical state of a car is much better in Germany than the US, and highways are better maintained. But still, the contrast is interesting. In the US, lifting speed limits on even straight roads through the desert would have poor outcomes.

I can only speak from my layman's understanding of US law. In the US, there's a doctrine prosecutorial discretion. Basically the police and prosecutors can choose whether to arrest and charge someone for a crime.

> "Maybe in places where code law is mostly binding, there’s a lot more pressure on the legislature to keep the law books up to date with the current norms of society."

In the US, where everything is so entwined with politics, there's a lot unenforceable laws still on the books.

For example, the US Supreme Court struck down sodomy laws in 2003. Last I checked, Texas still has a law on the books criminalizing sodomy. Sure Texas can't enforce it, but the conservative majority in the legislature won't actually repeal the law because politics. Similarly, when the US Supreme Court ruled that banning same-sex marriage was unconstitutional, Texas had to recognize same-sex marriage. But there was no law allowing same-sex couples to divorce. So there was this weird limbo wherein you couldn't get divorced if you were in a same-sex marriage.

America is weird.

There's a difference between laws that exist but are rendered moot by a court ruling it unconstitutional, and laws that exist and are constitutional but are just never used, and laws that exist, and are probably not constitutional, but aren't used, so have never been challenged.

For all intents and purposes sodomy was made legal by the 2003 precedent; that those laws are still technically in black-and-white doesn't mean they're in force.

But there are lots of laws that are still in force but aren't actually picked up and used much. They're still there, though. For instance, hardly anyone was prosecuted for Espionage Act violations for decades, but nobody disputes that the DoJ can dust that law off and start using it again, subject to the current jurisprudence on free speech etc.

Basically, many laws overlap and it isn't always clear what applies. A new law may pass but they don't go strike through all the old laws that no longer apply.

Also there are laws that reference other country's laws. An example is that is (or was) illegal to buy/posses a type of meat in the US that is illegal in other jurisdictions. This was made to protect endangered animals but can easily apply to everything as there are lot of jurisdictions and who really knows if any one of them currently doesn't allow pork or beef for whatever reason.

More details here a few minutes in: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE

Yes, laws are selectively enforced in many jurisdiction. For instance a local sheriff might choose to not enforce state or federal law when he sees it being broken. A local prosector can also choose to just not prosecute cases of a certain type as well. This is one reason why Americans are currently protesting our law enforcement, selective enforcement can make life difficult.

It partly can be explained through white privilege, as the law enforcement and judicial systems are designed systemically to screw over minorities. Racial profiling is a thing, and if you're black, a police officer can use whatever excuse they want to pull you over while driving, and if they can't find anything, they'll invent something (for example: planting drugs on you). When that happens, you're life is literally in danger. Many examples of this can be found - one just has to look at the racial makeup of the US prison system (systemic slavery). It goes really deep. The US is kind of in a state of being acknowledging this in a fundamental way, with the movement to defund the police.

Yeah, in the US, there are vague laws that are on the books but will get jury nullified in the real world.

I can think of an example in New Zealand where an old law (Sedition) was essentially ignored for several decades. A couple years after its first use in a modern setting (early 00's) it was repealed.

The perspective that there are “thousands of things that are illegal” but not prosecuted always fascinates me, that’s not at all a common perception e.g. here in Germany

It's definitely my perception in Berlin. There is almost no police, prosecutors and courts are completely understaffed.

>It's technically illegal to grow or possess any amount of weed

Federally. The states have made this all higgledy-piggledy. And since there's money (legit retail income and state sales tax) involved, I'm surprised we don't have more federal troops kicking down more retail establishment doors.

Federal law has changed on this matter and the federal government is prohobited from interfering with states medical marijuana laws including a complete prohibition on prosecution.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com