Hacker News Reader

Comment by lilytweed | Hacker News Reader

As someone else mentioned, there’s some speculation in aviation subreddits that the bounds of the altitude restriction map to the MANPAD capabilities that some cartels are purported to have.

https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/1r1s4zt/comment/o...

My read is that the admin is planning forceful strikes on the cartels within Mexico and is worried about their ability to retaliate by taking down US aircraft across the border.

Edit: The closure has now been kiboshed. The wording seems a little “don’t panic-y” to me, but better that than the alternative! https://x.com/FAANews/status/2021583720465969421

View on HN

Knowing the restriction goes to 18k certainly says that either S-A or A-S reach must be limited but the as your post points out no buffer between MANPAD actual range and the limit imposed. I think unlikely to say MANPAD, specifically.

There's a small private airfield to the west with only a single victor airway connecting to el-paso. the victors end at 17999 ft, effectively cutting traffic for non-commercial or non-business jet operators.

Closure of the victor airway there seems, again limiting airborne craft due to airborne hazards.

Hazards in the air, near the surface that are, seemingly, unplanned with a cone pointing at mexico.

That's kind of the most anyone will get until more info, could be some urgent testing of some capability or response to small craft (drones) coming over the boarder. Emergency timing could be to garner interest or emphasize importance, which works well politically.

Las Cruces International Airport and Dana Jetport are unaffected.

The restriction goes to 18k because that's the top of VFR space. Anyone operating above 18k has to be on an IFR clearance and under positive ATC control. That makes it easy for the feds to make a call and say "Hey, center, get everyone out of this airspace" wheras in the VFR altitudes it's very difficult for them to legally clear the space since a VFR plane could be flying around not talking to anyone.

I only know about Las Cruces from the Organ Mountain Outfitters training material in the DaVinci Resolve sample footage. Sadly they closed a few months ago, which is a shame because I never got my arse in gear to order a shirt from them.

Even Cartels know that shooting down civilian aircraft in US airspace would be an escalation that would lead to heavy retaliation. Doesn't seem likely to me.

Coming from groups that just pickup busses of people to murder, I wouldn’t be so sure that firing back at the US would be out of the question.

Murdering buses of people doesn't bring the full force of the US military on them. The difference is the risk not the depravity.

This is the answer. The cartels would have to be insane to poke that particular bear. They would get crushed like a bug. IIRC they murdered a single US undercover officer in the 90s and the retaliation was so bad that they themselves handed over the perpetrators.

> They would get crushed like a bug.

Much as I despise them, I'm not so sure that would be the case. I seem to remember folks saying the same about the Taliban, and the cartels have a lot more money and high-tech kit, than the Taliban.

Asymmetric warfare is a tough gig, on all sides.

The Taliban was repeatedly crushed. All of the leadership was killed many times over. The problem is the Taliban is an idea that transcends individual human members and it can always be reconstituted. It also benefited from being able to harbor supporters in Pakistan, which is a nuclear power the US was not willing to also invade.

There isn't a real analogy there because cartel leaders have no official state support anywhere, let alone in a bordering nuclear power, but even if they did, it hardly seems reassuring from their perspective to know the drug trade will outlive them after they all get killed. It's different when you're deeply religious and believe what you're doing is worth dying for and the larger arc of history is more important than your own life and wellbeing. I don't think drug lords think that way.

All this is true. Yet the cartels operate like militarized insurgents. Adopting similar tactics seen in Ukraine fighting so it’s interesting to say the least that they might be utilizing drone technology for their purposes.

I didn’t mean to start this giant thread about Mexican Cartels but here we are. Most think it’s just an isolated problem. Others know it’s more widespread. I simply stated that these murderous thugs are out there in full force with technology and armored vehicles. If provoked, they would lash out. It’s ridiculous because of course going up against the US is a losing proposition but each “generation” of cartel leader thinks they can somehow manage it.

I don’t think the technology matters nearly as much as the asymmetry. Iraq had better technology than the Taliban and their military didn’t last a week.

True enough, but the cartels are also experts at running what is basically guerrilla warfare, against each other. Not sure if the Mexican Army has ever tried to take them on. A lot of cartel soldiers come from the army.

That conflates two very different things:

* A conventional military war, on a battlefield: Neither Saddam Hussein's military nor the cartels nor the Taliban would last long against the US.

* An unconventional insurgency: The Iraqis quickly turned to this approach and it worked very well for them, as it did for the Taliban. The Taliban won, and the Iraqi insurgency almost drove the US out of Iraq and was eventually co-opted.

The cartels of course would choose the latter. They, the Taliban, etc. are not suicidal.

The Taliban did not "win" their insurgency.

The US decided to leave because staying was not politically popular, and left. They were not beaten by the Taliban, they were beaten by the political climate at home.

If someone is actively kicking your ass, then they decide that you aren't worth the effort to keep hurting and decide to walk away, that doesn't mean you "won" the fight even if you get what you want afterwards.

The Taliban control what they and the US and allies fought for. That's winning. Your personal requirement of how it must be won is not important - nobody cares how it was done and it doesn't change the outcome. The Taliban don't care and the US and its allies don't care.

It's also a perfectly common, expected way to win a war: First, wars always end with political solutions. The most well known principle of warfare is that it is 'politics conducted by other means' (i.e., by violence rather than by law or diplomacy). If there is no political solution, the war never ends. That's why the US didn't win the war in Afghanistan after decades - they couldn't create a stable political solution because they were unable to impose one on the Taliban, who in the end imposed one on the US and its allies.

Victory by outlasting enemy resources, including political will, is fundamental to warfare; wars end when resources to fight (for the political outcome) run out, but few end in total kinetic destruction of those resources - someone runs out of money or political will. It's also the explicit strategy of insurgencies. Enemies of the US know it very well and have used it for generations - that is how North Vietnam won, for example. When the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, the Afghans famously told them, 'you have the clocks (the technology), we have the time'.

Annoying your parents until they give you a cookie is still getting a cookie. Just because you didn't leverage overwhelming military firepower to get the cookie does not mean you aren't holding a cookie

The analogy here is you are verbally arguing with your parents over whether or not you can have a cookie.

Your parents get frustrated and leave. You now take a cookie from the jar.

You have a cookie, but that doesn't mean you won the argument.

I think the key difference between the Taliban and the cartels is that the Taliban were a bunch of ideologues who actually enjoyed being an insurgency and living under siege in caves, with making money from the drugs trade being a mere means to their real purpose of fighting infidels, whereas the cartel leadership sees wealth and power from controlling the drugs trade as an end, crushing local rivals as a means, and would really rather avoid the sort of conflict that's bad for their medium term business prospects.

I mean, some sort of cartels would bounce back after any "war on drugs" because supply and demand, but the people running them aren't hankering for martyrdom or glory over consolidating their territory and accumulating.

You are right rationality is their strongest character trait.

How are they not rational? Violence is a tool. They operate an illegal business so they can’t sue other parties for breach of contract. They can't call the police if they are robbed or file an insurance claim for what was taken. Even the over-the-top violence has a rationale. They aren't punishing the victims as much as they are attempting to broadcast that there is a higher price to be paid than any gain from giving information, to reduce their future losses and enforcement efforts. It isn’t moral or ethical, but I wouldn’t say it is irrational.

Lots of organized crime around the world manages to operate without cutting all the limbs off somebody then arranging them like flowers in a "vase" made out of the poor soul's ribcage. The cartels take violence far beyond what is pragmatically necessary. Their system of crime breeds excessive violence and insanity.

Marketing, if you don't know the answer it's always marketing

This stuff mostly followed after the zetas. It was a very deliberate strategy to compete in a hostile landscape that others eventually copied to survive.

It's notable that a lot of the Zetas came from a military special forces background, making it seem as if their extreme brutality was a strategic choice inculcated during their training.

https://ctc.westpoint.edu/a-profile-of-los-zetas-mexicos-sec...

> How are they not rational?

It's the meth.

The cartels are incredibly rational - what they lack are morals and ethics

Do you have much evidence of them behaving irrationally?

It's a business not an ideology.

I would recommend reading the Freakinomics book or listen to their podcasts on drugs.

TL;DR: drug cartels are run like businesses. They are very rational. But, unlike your boss, their boss can also shoot you in the face if you annoy them too much

How did that full force of the US military work out in Vietnam?

Millions of dead Vietnamese.

In any case that was a war against a hardened, experienced, determined enemy fighting for its freedom from any form of colonial occupation, both as a formal military and as an insurgent force in South Vietnam.

I scarcely think the Mexican population would rise up in defense of the cartels here.

A non-aligned population will look out for their own interests and are aware that the attention of the US is temporary but the cuadillismo that lead to cartels are a durable cultural artifact.

  The Battle of Culiacán, also known locally as the Culiacanazo and Black 
  Thursday, was a failed attempt to capture Ovidio Guzmán López, son of Sinaloa 
  Cartel kingpin Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán, who was wanted in the United States 
  for drug trafficking.
  
  Around 700 cartel gunmen began to attack civilian, government and military 
  targets around the city, despite orders from Ovidio sent at security forces' 
  request. Massive towers of smoke could be seen rising from burning cars and 
  vehicles. The cartels were well-equipped, with improvised armored vehicles, 
  bulletproof vests, .50 caliber (12.7 mm) rifles, rocket launchers, grenade 
  launchers and heavy machine guns.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Culiac%C3%A1n

The problem is you can't just target the cartels, the cartels are made up of random Mexican people. There is an almost guarantee that any significant US strikes would be 90%+ civilian casualties.

I think a lot of people would be cheering on the destruction of the cartels.

The destruction of cartels would involve careful policing and corruption controls, the best American administrations have been bad at this. The worst... can barely put its pants on much less dismantle foreign organized crime. You can't shoot a missile at a cartel and poof it's just gone.

They'd probably quickly stop cheering as their own homes and families were destroyed as collateral damage, which is what would happen if the "full force of the US military" were deployed against the cartels.

The last time America invaded Mexico City it created martyrs. It's a fascinating story that they do not teach at US highschools lol.

Curious, because the martyrs were Mexican high-school students.

We were briefly greeted as liberators in Iraq too.

It was never used, there.

Pretty badly for both sides

I don't really think you thought through that one. It sounds like what your saying is that the Vietnamese won and thats the outcome that matters. It does matter but that isn't the issue - it is the cost that everyone is talking about: the amount of destruction that was brought upon the country and people was terrible.

The distinction is those are cases where they are murdering Mexican citizens. If a cartel murdered a bus of people in America I suspect most any administration would retaliate in some form.

who are we (the US)? People who wantonly murder people on fishing boats, etc.

I’m not saying our cartel is any better…

Your use of "our" makes me wonder if the people of Mexico see the drug cartels as "theirs".

Merely pointing out that the US administration is operating like a cartel now a days.

I doubt Mexicans see the Mexican cartels as “theirs” in the same way. Cartels have only been interested in paying off politicians and (as far as I’m aware) weren’t interested in being politicians. However, our politicians here… would LOVE to be Cartel members and make millions it seems. Because they definitely don’t give a shit about law and order.

Absolutely. I suppose my question was really more interested in the perceived legitimacy (or lack thereof).

This is different.

See, Drug cartels over here operate with the blessing and favor of our president. They are tightly connected.

If a cartel dared to ground a US flight. The US government would have a "free pass" to break all hell loose in Mexico, and Sheinbaum wouldn't have a way to stop it.

She doesn't want that in any way, so the message to the cartel bosses would be to be very careful in that respect.

Sure, there have been US citizens killed within Mexico here and there, but those can easily be attributed to local violence. And as retribution, Mexican government sends a couple of wanted criminals to the US.

Yeah, if a cartel actually used anti-aircraft weapons on a US passenger plane in US airspace? It wouldn't even matter if MAGA or the Democrats were in charge. The US would collectively lose its shit and spend the next 10 years and several trillion dollars retaliating against the cartels. The media would be ecstatic, because it would give them a decade of story arcs, starting with "our brave troops in uniform" all the way through to covering the eventual quagmire and anti-war protests. By year 6-8, editorial columnists would be writing columns reconsidering their initial support for the war.

Please, let's not do this.

Unless the government is planning an attack on the cartel[s] that is so existential that such action wouldn't be considered an escalation but rather a tic for tat.

A trapped animal will generally use all its facilities regardless of its expected effectiveness.

Remember that there is no "the" cartel, just so many different towns and interests and bribed officials. It makes it a significant (and perhaps convenient) misnomer dont get me wrong, but maybe important to remember.

Extremely good, highly researched book if you want to get angry at me or call me idiot!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_Cartels_Do_Not_Exist

Good point. I guess it depends on the force, size, and especially effectiveness of any potential strikes. (i.e. How cornered a cartel might feel and how much flexing an outsized response might stand to gain them.)

Yea you have to be a nation state like Israel, Iran or Russia to blow civilian aircraft out of the sky with no retaliation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655

US has also blown a civilian airliner out the sky.

Yes that might be the high-level logic, but if you give a MANPAD to a 19 year old sicario on meth, accidents do happen.

I’d be surprised if cartels would tolerate hard drug use by their soldiers, it seems like the kind of thing they’d kill you for, lack of discipline.

I think you misunderstood that movie.

If that aircraft held a person they wanted dead, I would not put it past them.

Unless we start bombing them first. That’s not hard to imagine these days.

Not hard to imagine these days? Wouldn't you hope for an intervention if it were known that a hostile, state-level military planned to down civilian aircraft?

What happened after https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17 ?

I had a quick check, and there were zero Americans on board this Malaysian aircraft shot down by a nuclear power over Ukraine, so I don't know how you think it's relevant to an American aircraft full of Americans being shot down in American airspace by cartels immediately on the other side of the American border.

EDIT: Unless you think Malaysia not bombing the Kremlin in retribution is somehow indicative of how America would respond to the situation we're actually talking about.

I can't read your mind.

Mistakes happen though

My read is most likely some kind of strike on the cartels. There hasn’t seemed to be any significant US military buildup so it’s something they’ll be able to do with a smaller force.

The trapezoid makes me worried about a ground incision there- it extends to the border and would be a cover space for an invasion force. Absolutely bonkers that we are even having this discussion.

The TFR is most likely contingency planning for possible retaliation by cartel drones and the need to keep the airspace clear so they can see (with radar) and shoot down drones and not passenger aircraft.

You are the first person to mention invasion. Kind of bonkers to jump to that conclusion.

Unfortunately, we find ourselves living in a bonkers time.

Other commenters here in this thread as well as many people on reddit and other sites about this news are also saying the same thing. Our minds are not as unique as we think :)

Nuts, definitely. Bonkers to jump to that conclusion? No, especially with this US administration. Mexico itself is concerned enough about the possibility that it's made statements to make it clear it wouldn't be acceptable. Mexico thinks it's nuts, too, but not bonkers to think the US might do it.

US troops in Mexico 'not on the table', Sheinbaum tells Trump https://www.france24.com/en/americas/20260112-us-troops-mexi...

She's on the Cartel payroll. Of course she would say that. You can't be a simple mayor without cartel involvement in Mexico.

> She's on the Cartel payroll

> You can't be a simple mayor without cartel involvement in Mexico.

I don't know what world you're living in, but this is absolutely not the case. Mexico is not a failed state, don't get all your news from places trying to scare you.

It is totally nuts. We will see I guess. If there will be a ground invasion, people will see the convoys moving into position. You can’t really hide that much stuff.

What’s also bonkers is our political whimpiness that allowed this to happen, right? If there is a drone response it’s pretty damning evidence that we are way too dovish in our policy against drug smuggling up until now

It doesn't say much either way.

I'm from the UK, we had the ("real") IRA put a RPG-22 anti-tank rocket at the walls of MI6 HQ (the UK version of the CIA): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_MI6_attack

Dangerous things like these are not expensive, compared to even low budget small-time group.

I mean the RIRA is a splinter group of the PIRA which had massive funding from overseas, especially from the United States. PIRA was not a small-time group.

I definitely phrased my comment badly; but to your point, it depends on the era. Here's the House of Commons estimate in 2002, I don't know how different it would have been in 2000: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200102/cmselect/cmni...

(Table 1): RIRA Estimated running costs (per year) "£500,00", Estimated fundraising capacity (per year) "£5 million".

I'm assuming that's a typo missing a zero (i.e. should be half a million), not a typo substituting comma for decimal (i.e. five hundred quid). Even with 24 years of inflation, that spend does not suggest a big group to me.

"Maybe, or maybe FL180 is a nice clean line for class A airspace. No need to bother transcontinental flights for a local issue."

Way more plauible

FL180 is the floor of Class A airspace, "the flight levels", where airliners etc. operate.

Relevant chapter from FAA "Pilot's Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge": https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/17_phak_ch15.pdf

In the "Flight Levels", altitudes are referred to not in feet above sea level but as "FLxxx" where xxx is a nominal altitude in 100s of feet.

Altimetry is done using barometric pressure. Since this varies with weather, airplanes at lower altitudes set their altimeters to the local barometric pressure for a reasonably accurate reading. In the flight levels, where planes are typically covering ground quickly and there is very little chance of your path conflicting with the surface of the Earth, every plane sets to an agreed-upon reference of 29.92 inches of mercury as the altimeter setting.

What does that mean sorry?

It means any aircraft transitioning over the area at high altitude isn't impacted, because they're too high to care.

It is a ground and "everything near the ground" stop. Meaning low altitude helicopters and private aircraft have to consider it, even transitioning, but realistically commercial aircraft not taking off/landing in the area won't.

FL180 is 18000 feet, meaning that flights OVER don’t need to divert.

It is a pedantic but meaningful distinction that I'd only point out on a sorta geeky site like this, but actually, FL180 (or, flight level one-eight-zero) is the altitude at which an altimeter will read 18,000 feet if it's set to assume that the barometric pressure is 1013 hPa (29.92 inHg). Above a certain transition altitude, aircraft switch their altimeters from reading altitude in the local pressure to this "standard" pressure. This is because above that altitude and safely away from terrain, it's no longer important to know precisely how high you are, but it _is_ important to know what altitude you are relative to all the other aircraft nearby.

It means that you have no business being below FL180 or 18,000ft to enter this airspace.

That it limits local flights but not international ones as they fly higher.

Doing a closure up to 18k feet is common because that's where class A airspace starts, i.e. you need a clearance to go there, you can't just fly around VFR wherever you want. The airspace above 18k might not be officially closed, but controllers can be instructed to just not give a clearance into whatever area they deem is unsafe on a particular day.

I think it's simpler. It's going to make the cartel drones easier to spot.

Do you think the cartels won’t see this news? If this is all it was, the cartels can just wait 10 days and start up again.

Shooting down civilian American aircraft like that would seem to just be for an even more strong response…

Seems unlikely.

If only this was a certainty - Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 was shot down with 298 people killed 12 years ago but still no one was directly punished for it...

Malaysia isn't going to attack Russia.

I highly doubt the Russians/separatists running the Buk knew the identity of the flight before shooting it down.

Most certainly not, but I don't see how that is relevant.

The problem (from a victim/Dutch perspective) is that there is complete denial from the Russian side (despite heaps of evidence around the people involved, origin and transport of the launcher from Russian territory).

Even if Russian judges and prosecutors are completely corrupt and biased, an actual investigation/trial is the least that would be expected here, but all we got are the bald faced lies that Russia is particularly fond of.

Because the thread was about how shooting down a civilian airliner has consequences, and the person I replied to insinuated it didn't because Malaysia was ill-equipped to push the issue militarily.

Which isn't relevant if the people who shot it down had no idea if it was / wasn't Malaysian.

Similar to how cartels likely wouldn't have the sophistication to nationally ID any aerial targets they choose to shoot.

Makes sense! Misunderstood the point you were trying to make.

At least some vengeance has been already done in blood, although indirectly, given how oversized has been dutch support for Ukraine compared to other similarly sized countries.

> Shooting down civilian *American* aircraft like that would seem to just be for an even more strong response…

They would want to avoid escalation. Escalation with cartels historically does not go well for anyone involved.

Escalation by attacking US civilians or the homeland has also gone poorly. It’s been the casus belli many times, notably ending in two Japanese cities getting nuked…

The homeland? Yikes.

The last time there was an attack within the United States’ borders it notably ended with a self-owning combination of perhaps the largest bureaucratic waste of time and money in human history (DHS/TSA) and the systematic erosion of enumerated rights.

Dropping nuclear bombs on Japan was in an entirely different context which has no relevance here. We're not in the middle of a global war (nor is anyone even at war with Mexico), nor in a nuclear arms race asserting nuclear capabilities for the first time in history.

You're forgetting all the times the US failed too, and those cases weren't even on its own border. Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam... the list is very long. Creating an existential threat on your own border is a bad move for anyone. Remember how bad Columbia got? I guess not. The current situation has the potential to be much more dangerous.

> You're forgetting all the times the US failed too, and those cases weren't even on its own border.

Doesn't the US have more resources at home, not less?

Wouldn't a strike on US soil be a larger escalation and dictate a swift and larger response?

This is real life. They don't to cause a problem they can't solve.

You are now leaning your premise as an argument. I disagree that it would cause a problem.

I believe it's unrealistic that "the cartel" would strike back against the USG, particularly on US soil.

Today I learned: Man-portable air-defense systems (MANPADS) are shoulder-fired, surface-to-air missiles designed for use by individuals or small teams to engage low-flying aircraft, helicopters, and UAVs.

Would that account for the trapezoidal shape of the one restricted area?

My bet is a showy armored advance though the open terrain near there… it’ll look great on camera! /s

Sounds like a great way to reinforce the "We ready to move along from Epstein" narrative.

It seems crazy not to just, tell people that if that's what it is. "Hey if you are flying above 18,000 please don't go lower because you could be blown up by a MANPAD."

If the cartels have MANPADS then our intel is already blown by issuing the TFR, so what's the harm in just saying it out loud?

Mass panic? Think of how wildly it would be misrepresented in the media and how disruptive it would be to all air travel in the country. People aren't rational actors and the most sensationalized headline is what ends up spreading

For your first point, on the off chance they have other equipment capable of surpassing MANPADS I’d prefer as a passenger they just fly around.

Second point, it’s not obvious if its for MANPAD reasons or it’s our own operation though we can speculate.

I'm not sure if the person I replied to edited their comment, or I looked at the wrong one, but the one I originally read said the TFR only had the restriction below 18,000 ft. I was addressing it on that basis, which wasn't requiring people flying above that to route around it.

Of course, the US elected the only celebrity of the 80s and 90s who hates blow.

On the other hand a careful analysis of the plumbing system of Trump's Tower and Trump's Hotels in general would reveal possibly the highest concentration of coke than any other building in the world considering the intersection of wealth and istrionic personalities who called those apartments home at one time or the other.

Fate sure loves irony

Besides I would go to my grave claiming that racism is particularly strong in the war on drugs, if coca grew plentiful and naturally in the US and Europe it would not be illegal at all.

But it's scary because uh ohh inssulfation of an extract of a plant coming from the global south we are all gonna die, somebody will please think of the children.

But hey you can gulp 60 oz of super strong energy drinks which equate to about 5-6 fat lines, matter of fact you can gulp 600 oz and cause yourself a heart attack and nobody would bat an eye or investigate the safety profile of such drinks

It's the same old story with alcohol too

> But hey you can gulp 60 oz of super strong energy drinks which equate to about 5-6 fat lines

Are you joking?

Look, I’m no stranger to drugs, but coke is not a “60oz energy drink” and its potential for generally destroying someone’s life is, while not at the same level, definitely in the same ballpark as crack, heroin, and meth.

60 oz energy drink = 5-6 fat lines perhaps more

The most dense energy drinks have 350-400 of caffeine in a can these days and on top of that there's the taurine etc.

60 oz is 4 cans, do your math. 4 * 400 = 1600mg of caffeine alone

> > potential for generally destroying someone’s life is, while not at the same level, definitely in the same ballpark as crack, heroin, and meth.

That's more of the result of the enviornment and the associated people who frequent such circles and not the stimulant per se.

I don't say this lightly, as someone who has spent decades around drugs, and as a result, knows more than a few recovering addicts: this comes across as wild rationalization by an addict.

And while 1600mg of caffeine is 4x the FDA's recommended daily intake and really isn't a good idea, someone on that much caffeine is neither going to feel nor behave in any way similar to someone on coke.

I am sorry but you are way off.

Sewer stats tell us that in reality the most civilized places in the world have the highest amount of coke in their sewers.

Zurich, Brussel, Berlin, Melbourne, Billionaire's row in NYC, Nantucket [0]

For those who don't jump the hedonic treadmill blow is just edgy chic coffee with the thrill of doing something 'illegal' and snorting it instead of consuming it orally.

Of course if you take coffee and nicotine and that gives you plenty of stimulation for 6-7 hours you have no business moving into the stronger stimulants, although they are also availible not just in the form of blow but Wellbutrin, Adderall, Dextra etc and again plenty used in the most civilized places and not so much used in the less civilized places

[0]https://www.euda.europa.eu/publications/pods/waste-water-ana...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com