Hacker News Reader

Comment by tenpies | Hacker News Reader

I love observing NYC, SF, and LA policies like this because it's so ridiculous.

An under 21 year old can go shoot up any substance - with the guarantee that the police won't touch them - at any of the safe injection sites, but progessive-heaven forbid that they want some whipped cream for their ice cream or want to try a recipe that included using one of these gas cartridges.

Canisters on the street? A disturbing eye sore that must be dealt with swiftly. Needles on the street? A sign of progressive tolerance and a reminder that drug users are the real victims.

View on HN

You might want to do some research before proffering an ill-informed opinion. In particular, I would look up "Harm Reduction" which is a relatively new strategy. Heroin is already illegal, so it can't be made any more illegal. What we can do is provide a place for addicts to safely use the drug while they interface with members of the community trying to help them. We are learning the dangers of nitrous oxide, so the first logical step is to limit sales of it.

Friends of Hsieh claim that he was using up to 50 cartridges of Nitrous Oxide each day and often in public or during meetings. Witnesses described his home and bedroom being littered with hundreds of used cartridges

https://www.addictioncenter.com/news/2021/11/zappos-ceo-tony...

Republicans know that strategy and reject it. Their strategy is more about personal responsibility.

In fact, I'd expect a theoretical Republican leadership in NYC to ban the cool-whip too. For harm reduction, wouldn't allowing it be better if it's safer than the alternatives?

No the strategy is associate drugs with minorities to make being a minority illegal.

Ehrlichman told Baum. "We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."

This is an unverified quote from someone last in office in 1969, about president Nixon who he may have had a grudge against. But if so, which minority is being targeted with the cool-whip ban?

People in the counter culture who are against war mongering are historically considered to be a minority

The term "minority" is not only about race

Nobody said it was only race.

I'm wondering why the question was presented in the first place then, as this is in the quote:

>make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana

I asked which minority is being targeted, not which race. Hippies and anti-war aren't a race either.

Hippies and anti-war are the minority, which is specified in the quote. Hence my clarification. So why was the question presented?

My apologies, I appear to have misunderstood the comment chain. The commenter saying that the whip cream law discriminates against minorities is incorrect.

Prohibition itself does discriminate against minorities but age regulation does not, in fact age regulation of psychoactive substances is a good step in the right direction away from hard-line prohibitionist policies.

It is ridiculous on the surface, I guess.

But those same progressive governments still make it illegal to sell those drugs which can are used in the safe injection sites.

So, this seems consistent to me, even if ridiculous on the surface, because those more dangerous substances are treated the same.

No one’s getting arrested for inhaling no2, just like people are not getting arrested for smoking weed or for shooting up in the safe sites

Edit for clarity: the only thing that’s actually ridiculous about it IMO is that, obviously, there’s a huge proportion of people, under 21, buying whipped cream that aren’t doing it to get high

Just use your whip cream in the safe injection sites. Problem solved.

NYC is the biggest and densest city in the US, so it has unique challenges. For example, what are the cops supposed to do to heroin addicts? Jail them repeatedly, send them elsewhere, or what, give the death penalty? Wherever you live isn't like NYC except more Republican, so you can't focus on small details like the right to buy cool-whip.

But SF truly is horribly mismanaged. Compare it to other dense cities. I'm glad I never have to work there again.

Could just have drugs be legal for those of age if they do them in private spaces.

1) Then you wouldn't have shady operations and drug cartels producing and selling drugs and the illegality, by nature, supporting said cartels

2) Jails wouldn't already be full

3) Cops and courts wouldn't have to spend so many resources trying to enforce the dumb laws.

That's a non equivalency

Ability to purchase a substance is not the same as being provided a space to use a substance obtained elsewhere safely to curb overdoses

These policies are about reducing harm, prohibition itself increases harm

Your argument is not consistent, it is still illegal to use or poses illegal drugs; only exception is safe drug use sites, where you can use canisters.

And your last part has no actual real point, instead just a strawman. (example: the more bullet holes and reported gun deaths you find the more traditional societal values the place got).

Some advice: being snarky while making your point doesn't help the argument in any favorable way.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com