Hacker News Reader

That man gave you your entire life back. It's not just the time you would have served, but it would have ruined so much of the rest of your life too.

Oh yea. Part of me coming to reality was the officer helping me realize that it would have ruined my family, and had quite a criminal record.

He did give him back his life.

But how is it possible that his life was at risk at all? Why a 10 year sentence for taking drugs? The government should simply not have that power.

Its kind of ironic that most law and order folks would consider this an example or dirty cops being dirty or privilegeor whatever. The fact is, this stuff doesn't really seem to happen anymore unless you're the Prime Ministers wife or something

Because it happens more often than not but everyone involved keeps their mouth shut. It's not something you should really plan to get viral on social media...

"Look at the cute cop who let me go with a warning after trafficking drugs" XOXO

For me that was an example of lazy cop who don't want to do extra paperwork.

It saved one life, but that person could later return to selling drugs and contribute to thousands OD's and many deaths.

Ya but...I feel like justice can often be had for the price of a stern finger-wagging and understanding that even if you're not booked into the system, you're in the system now and its best you clean up shop and get outta town figuratively speaking ;)

10 year sentence for selling drugs, not taking them.

Like the other person said, it was for selling, not taking. Also, I think someone should have the power to keep the public safe, whether government, or a society-sponsored group.

The cops were undercover DEA with previous experience going underground in places like Colombia. They had been in rough places. Their focus was mainly hunting the big guys: suppliers. End-chain young people trying to make a quick buck is low yield, and if anything going after them distracts from the root of the problem and alerts the big guys.

From what I read, MDMA is barely worse than weed or booze.

Or, rather, he declined to steal his life away and imprison him for what they obviously both agreed was a bullshit reason.

I don’t think declining to be a villain warrants the same response as choosing to be a hero.

The power of stories like this never fails to humble me. There are countless (less dramatic) incidents like this in every life. Your experience brings them back into focus.

Offtopic, but minimum sentences are nuts. What's the point of judges and juries etc if we make the law so aggressive that they hardly have a say anymore?

Juries ultimately have the final say in conviction. Its well within their right to go not guilty for any reason.

Judges and lawyers absolutely hate it, but juries aren't there just as a logical check on laws as written and facts as presented. Juries are a check on the legal system and laws themselves.

Sure, but saying someone is not guilty when obviously they are but a 10 year prison sentence is way out of proportion for what they did, that’s stupid too right? It means we expect juries to lie, on purpose, to prevent ruining someone’s life. It forces juries to pick between two bad extremes.

These kinds of laws remove the opportunity for juries (or judges where I live) to eg say “6 months of community service” when it’s more appropriate.

If you look up the terms “no reasonable jury” and “judgment of acquittal,” you can learn more.

Right, judges can overrule any jury verdict, civil or criminal, except a criminal acquittal.

But that's not inconsistent with what GP said.

> Judges and lawyers absolutely hate it,

Well, defense lawyers love it, the only thing they hate is not being allowed to mention it to juries.

The minimum sentence had been recently enforced at that time because things were getting really out of hand with MDMA flooding the markets. Probably tons of deaths, adulterated compounds, and ruining people's brains.

I say ruining people's brains because, in the world of raves I was involved in, most customers were teens, and I knew quite a bit who kept taking it excessively for self-medication, eventually just to get through the day, and I would see the decline in their cognitive functions over time. It was really sad. I denied selling to those people because they scared me. But...I was selling nonetheless. So unaware of the consequences of my actions...

> What's the point of judges and juries etc if we make the law so aggressive that they hardly have a say anymore?

Minimum sentences don't impact the juries say, which doesn't extend to sentencing in the first place, at all.

Kudos to officer Garcia. I don’t know many people who still bring that kind of responsibility to their job. So much easier to just follow the rules. Even among judges I know only very few who have the guts to make an actual judgement, which, after all, requires to say “I” - which seems almost an audacity today.

Sounds like the plot of Les Mis!

Les Mis has a totally different feel when you've been locked up. It touches me even deeper.

Was about to say! Real life Jean Valjean

You should not have been arrested.

MDMA should have been legal.

End of story.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-023-02565-4 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34708874/ https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/18/well/mind/mdma-ecstasy-ri... https://www.euronews.com/next/2023/07/03/australia-just-lega...

It's legal or decriminalized in Portugal, The Czech Republic, The Netherlands, and Switzerland, by the way. Surprise: Those are now the countries with the lowest number of drug deaths and drug related crimes in Europe.

Although I agree with you, imho the point the parent was making was that:

a) when you are 16-18-20-22 you don't know sh*t about life - you are still a newbie. It doesn't mean that drug-trafficking is excused but when I look back at my 18yo self, I could have died 100 times between 18 and 22. And I could have 'taken some people with me' while doing so.

b) it's in the person. When given a second chance you can either turn your life around (and a Mr. Garcia will never see you again) or you can go back the very next day and maybe a Mr. Garcia will be finding your corpse in a back alley because a trade went sour.

As for Preston Thrope - hang in there. It's a long path to salvation - almost endless. As long as you keep your head up high and give the good fight, good things will (probably?) come. I've watched enough of John Oliver's Last Week Tonight shows to know that you got myriad of forces that want to see you fail so keep walking and dreaming!

I agree I veered off the parent's point.

In his case his whole life could have been ruined by selling a harmless (if clean!) drug to ravers who very clearly know what and why they are buying a substance from him.

Also, in my hypothetical "you should not have been arrested as it should be legal case" he might have ended poor and homeless in the street because everybody was just going to the pharmacy instead of buying from him. :)

Ok...? Why would you start debating MDMA legality when someone's sharing their story?

Also, all the studies you linked are about using it in therapy vs using it at a rave?

presumably because OP was traumatised by this interaction with law enforcement that - had things been only subtly different - could have been a catastrophic event in their life.

there wasn’t a moral crime here - MDMA is widely regarded to be.. safe (please don’t bite on that, i mean to say that current research indicates that it’s probably less dangerous than alcohol). so why should that have been so traumatic?

Haha I understand your point. But it is a dangerous substance when used without medical supervision.

And more importantly, what I was selling was presumably MDMA. I didn't have kits to check the batches for adulteration. What if people died? I was not ready for that responsibility.

I sure would not have bought from you, as it's a stupid idea to buy from someone inside a club where it very well may be the case that the seller did not do quality control. For me, that would have been the part to feel bad about: "How on earth could I put other ravers lives in danger by selling pills that I have not had tested, and that could contain pretty much anything?".

I also agree that MDMA can be a dangerous substance of course. Far less toxic than alcohol, but still.

But compared to this, ending up in the US jail system carries FAR bigger risks. As you said: It could have ruined your life. It could also have ruined the life of people who bought from you, as they could also have ended up getting arrested.

I really can not imagine a drug available that will do worse things to your life than ending up inside the US jail system.

Isn't that precisely an argument for legalisation? You wouldn't have 19 year kids selling shit, you would have pharmacies and certification processes and etc.

In many countries street weed is much cheaper than legal one from the pharmacy.

19 years kids could be selling even more knowing they would not be locked for 10+ years.

I agree it's one argument. But, my views on legalization at the moment are these:

Alcohol is a drug, and it gets you drunk. Has side-effects, affects long-term health, etc, etc.

Weed is a drug, and in my personal experience it's WAY more "drug" than alcohol, especially how it's used nowadays. Also, across all cultures/races, studies show that the earlier a person starts consuming it, the higher the risk of developing some sort of psychosis later in life (I have my own theories as to "why").

Also, who smokes weed the most? When I did clinical rotations in New York it was the poor and the less educated that smoked weed all day. I would even see black mothers in ghetto areas who took their children to the park and just sit in the benches smoking weed, not paying attention to or interacting with their children, which to me is a very bad example and perpetuating a negative cycle.

The more educated did it occasionally, and with self control. So unrestricted access to weed for those with less self-control and goal-oriented behavior is more likely to ruin their lives; the very people who instead need to cultivate more self control and goal-oriented behavior.

I'm glad that weed is now available legally, because it guarantees users a clean product, as opposed to nowadays in KY where I'm at lots of illicit weed is laced with fentanyl-like compounds. I consume THC + CBD every once in a blue moon, and I don't dare touch street products for various reasons.

MDMA legal...well, I haven't seen anyone die from weed. But MDMA is quite dangerous. And who screens beforehand if that person has a cardiovascular issue they may not even be aware of? Alcohol and weed don't have much of a short-term effect on the heart. MDMA is an amphetamine-like compound.

These are my thoughts at the moment.

In general most psychoactive substances should only be tried once you are a stable person. While your brain and mindset is still in early development it may cause harm.

This is especially the case if you have a trauma hidden. I have seen people who got abused as a kid, and then in their early 20iers tried LSD, and absolutely weren't ready for their brain to suddenly bring up those memories.

OTOH: I'm going to large rave festivals often. There you see the ambulance cars mostly unused. If you go to Oktoberfest, there is constant activity and people getting hospitalized. And people look really fucked up, throwing up everywhere, etc. Overdosing alcohol is more common than with any other drug.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/Rational...

I wonder how many people here would agree with your claim "it is a dangerous substance when used without medical supervision". Often in hacker circles soft drugs are viewed as something people can take on their own provided that, as you suggest, purity is guaranteed. And while setting and trusted and savvy companionship is important, the involvement of a medical professional may kill the whole freespirited vibe.

I just posted a response in part of the thread saying "The minimum sentence had been recently enforced at that time", which is part of my explanation for that.

As a teenager I encountered so many people who thought they were experts with drugs because nothing had yet happened to them.

Nowadays, finishing up med school, with tons of real pharmacology and clinical knowledge, having seen lots of things in the psych wards, the ER, and stories from my wife (a physician too), I've come to realize that most people who think they know about these substances and their dangers don't really know.

Anyone can educate themselves, but lots of "drug customers", especially the most susceptible (youth + less educated), don't even have a background to know HOW to educate themselves properly concerning these things. Their knowledge is tainted by "most comments online say..." plus "and my friends who know all about these drugs..." plus "and one study I read" = so all I have to do is X, Y, Z.

I’m not sure I’d consider mdma to be a soft drug.

Over-dosing acid by a factor of 10 will be scary for a few hours. Doing it with mdma will likely be scary for your family in the hospital.

Over-dosing vodka by a factor of 10 will likely be scary for your family in the hospital. Same goes for nutmeg.

Part of the danger of a substance is how much distance there is between the substance doing something intended and something unintended by taking a higher dose.

Part of the problem of the opiod endemic in the US is that fentanyl is so potent that due to fluctuations in the incompetent black market on it, and/or due to incompetence by its users, things can turn deadly quickly.

The other thing is how long it takes for you to notice the effects of a substance. If you get a quick result it's far less dangerous to overdose, as you'll notice when it's enough.

Also some the best countries to hide criminal activity without having to hide yourself. <3

I don't think MDMA is "legal or decriminalized" in the Czech Republic...? Sure, consumption of _anything_ is decriminalized here (you are allowed to possess only a tiny amount for your own consumption) but other than that, owning, offering, selling, importing, etc. MDMA is very much criminalized here!

How does that work exactly? How does one end up with a tint amount for personal consumption if someone else couldn't legally allowed to have enough to sell?

Seems really strange that the government would have bothered decriminalizing consumption if the supply itself is illegal.

Why is that weird? You can have food, you can make food for yourself and your friend, but if you’re selling cooked food to strangers you need to have minimum standards of cleanliness etc.

There are legal avenues to buy food though. My confusion is just that its illegal to sell but legal to own, it seems that still makes it functionally illegal to own since you shouldn't be able to buy it anywhere

This is indeed a logic problem that exists in many countries that have partial legislation.

But it still helps. It removes the stigma, but most importantly: In many countries going after substance users is a low-hanging fruit to police. Instead of solving real crimes if you raid a club you can arrest a lot of "criminals", improving your statistics.

In the "war on drugs", in 99% police is going after the users, not the dealers, because the latter are far harder to catch.

> How does that work exactly? How does one end up with a tint amount for personal consumption if someone else couldn't legally allowed to have enough to sell?

Same way people acquire guns illegally in US states that prohibit gun ownership: involved parties choose to break the law.

> Seems really strange that the government would have bothered decriminalizing consumption if the supply itself is illegal.

These governments take the stance that drug dealers exploit the addictions/circumstances of their customers, exposing them to more harm. So they make selling (or possessing enough that an intent to sell seems probable) illegal.

Because the users are at worst harming themselves (assuming they aren’t doing something like driving while intoxicated, or parenting under the influence, but there are laws that already handle these scenarios), these governments don’t see the point in further harming the users of these drugs by locking them away in prison. So drug use is legal, and possessing a small amount (so small that it would be unlikely you’re selling) is legal. Also, because the use of drugs is not illegal, this makes users more likely to seek help, whether from their community or resources provided by their government.

> Same way people acquire guns illegally in US states that prohibit gun ownership: involved parties choose to break the law.

There are legal avenues to buy guns in the US though, that's the confusion for me. Why bother saying I can own it if the law also says no one can legally sell it to me?

> Why bother saying I can own it if the law also says no one can legally sell it to me?

The government isn’t saying “we’re totally ok with you personally taking drugs,” it’s saying “we don’t think that arresting people who have small amounts of drugs for personal consumption is a valuable use of law enforcement resources, so we’re decriminalizing personal possession and use to focus those resources on larger criminal organizations.”

"Very much criminalized" is a matter of perspective. Getting caught first-time in non-violent drug crimes in the Czech Republic means you'll end up with a minimal sentence on probation without actual jail time.

In the US, your life would be ruined forever.

But yeah, legal consumption without legal supply (with quality control!) does not fully solve the problem.

In Switzerland the sentencing isn't very tough for possession in small quantities, but you certainly cannot _sell_ MDMA and hope for lenient treatment.

Are you sure it's decriminalized for selling? Selling and consuming are not the same thing.

NACAB