Hacker News Reader

Comment by AlbertCory | Hacker News Reader

we've heard about the "root causes of crime" for 50 years. Ditto "facing the sickness." Crime rises and falls independent of the social spending on this.

"why crime occurs" -- because there are always criminals, and they seek out opportunity? How about that?

Ordinary citizens have a right to be safe in their cities.

https://hrdag.org/people/kristian-lum-phd/

I would not call this the profile of an objective scientist. Rather, she's an advocate.

> pretty much everyone in the metro area under study (SF) used drugs, or at least drug use was equally prevalent in pretty much every geographical area and among all demographics.

I call BS on this one. Upscale people in Pacific Heights smoke crack and shoot heroin? Prove it.

View on HN

> "why crime occurs" -- because there are always criminals, and they seek out opportunity? How about that?

"Criminals" are not some kind of universal entity that exists by default. They are people engaging in different patterns of behavior. They act this way for understandable, and often rational reasons. You're welcome to whatever mental model of the world you want, but in my view you're being unhelpfully reductionist.

> I call BS on this one. Upscale people in Pacific Heights smoke crack and shoot heroin? Prove it.

No obviously not, being obtuse on purpose doesn't further any useful discussion. The type of drug used clearly matters in some contexts (eg. public health), but in the context of arresting "criminals" I don't really care whether its fent or their grandma's oxy. The point is that abusing both are crimes, and that type of crime is everywhere.

> Ordinary citizens have a right to be safe in their cities.

I agree! Have a nice day :)

> unhelpfully reductionist

Is that some new curse word? Reducing a problem to its root causes is another term for "science."

> No obviously not, being obtuse on purpose doesn't further any useful discussion.

"Obtuse"? you're the one who said "drugs are everywhere." You're the one making obtuse statements you can't support. No one's upset about rich people doing drugs, because they're not the ones smashing car windows.

> They act this way for understandable, and often rational reasons.

this sounds like something you like to believe, rather than anything that comes out of studying actual criminals.

Psychologists who study real criminals in prisons report a very high level of psychopathy. AFAIK there is no treatment for that.

> "Criminals" are not some kind of universal entity that exists by default.

actually, all the evidence through history says that they are a "universal entity," given that every civilized society has them. Maybe you're imagining some sort of ideal society that doesn't have them, but in our real world, we do.

And the word "criminals" does not need quotation marks.

No, but they might take MDMA or LSD, or they might abuse opiates or sleeping pills. "Drugs" isn't a codeword for some specific kind of thing, it's a very amorphous class of substances that changes significantly depending on who you ask.

The fact remains that a lot of people you might not think are drug users actually are. You're just not seeing them because they're functional people who lead ordinary lives. There's a whole host of different subcultures where drug use might be accepted beyond the desperate poor. And those subcultures generally have different norms around what is acceptable and what gets you shunned.

The police will arrest you just the same whether they catch you with a couple of MDMA pills or a baggy of crack.

> https://hrdag.org/people/kristian-lum-phd/

> I would not call this the profile of an objective scientist. Rather, she's an advocate.

What exactly is the problem in there? If you're for "human rights" you can't be objective? Everything else just seems to be a summary of her research results.

Should epidemiologists be careful to never advocate for policies that improve survival outcomes so they maintain the profile of an objective scientist?

>What exactly is the problem in there?

It's not that someone who is "for" something can't be objective, it's just that there is a strong likelihood that they ~aren't~ being objective. It doesn't mean an advocate doesn't have valuable perspectives, it just means that you should perhaps take them with a grain of salt.

Everyone is "for" something, hence the ridiculous example of

> Should epidemiologists be careful to never advocate for policies that improve survival outcomes so they maintain the profile of an objective scientist?

So again I'll ask: specifically what is the "something" listed on that page[1] that would lead you to believe this person is better considered an advocate and not an "objective scientist"?

[1] https://hrdag.org/people/kristian-lum-phd/

It makes sense that upscale people use lots of drugs. They can afford it. Wine moms popping pills is practically trope fit for family friendly comedy tv. Cocaine lawyers, "upper"/"downer" party culture that only the well-off youth can generally afford... I know so many wealthy college kids bumming off adderall and other adhd drugs from their friends...

> I call BS on this one. Upscale people in Pacific Heights smoke crack and shoot heroin? Prove it.

Your question is flawed: "Upscale people" can afford different drug-habits and different drugs... Or even the same drug in a different form-factor that gets a different name.

That confusion is really important to recognize and eradicate, because we've already seen it used for evil and human suffering.

It has lead (and may yet lead) to incredibly biased laws where two people getting caught with the same amount of the same chemical received insanely different punishments, based on whether its packaging/administration was the "low class" form or what the "upscale" preferred.

Your own question echoes this: You demanded proof of "crack" (cocaine) specifically, but not "powdered". In the past, 5g of crack cocaine would cause a mandatory minimum 5-year prison term, while "upscale people" with 499g of powdered cocaine didn't have to worry about that.

Isn't that because the free base form is a lot more bioavailable/potent? Similar to meth vs. Adderall. Not that I agree with criminalization of any of it, and the scale factors might be off, but there's at least some logic to it.

No, the reasoning was abundantly clear: The war on drugs (especially crack) was to target minority populations that didn't support the administration.

Either that, or they cause street crimes (which primarily affect other minorities).

Kind of? The two are chemically the same - the big difference is that crack is often smoked which makes it fast acting. However, the high last about as long as it takes to kick in, so it’s pretty much a quick up and down.

It was believed to be so much “worse” than powdered because crack was used as a means to vilify black communities while powdered circulated in white communities with must more lenient punishments.

My understanding is that they are not chemically the same: you can't smoke cocaine or amphetamine salts; they'll burn instead of vaporizing. You need to first swap what stabilizer the active component is bound to. i.e. perform some reaction to convert to crack/meth. The point of doing that conversion is to be able to smoke it. My understanding is it's also not just fast acting, but quite a bit more intense. So e.g. more likely to trigger psychosis instead of just making you talk a lot, clean the house, get good grades, etc.

Hmmm, I’ll admit I did a cursory amount of research and tried a source that looked as unbiased as I could manage without diving super deeply.

I have smoked cocaine before (on a blunt with cannabis) and it felt like I felt something but who knows.

> Upscale people in Pacific Heights smoke crack and shoot heroin?

They don't smoke crack, they snort powdered cocaine, or do pills. They don't start (But they sometimes end) with fent, or heroin, or meth, they start with oxy and adderral.

What do find to be the key difference between smoking crack and insufflating cocaine? Because "upscale people" include plenty enjoyers of the latter.

You assume doing drugs is a sign of a dysfunctional person. While it often is, plenty of people use drugs responsibly, in moderation, because drugs are fun.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com