Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Shedding light on the dark web

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 196 posts

Re: Shedding light on the dark web

#141

Post by Tiksi »

hasenj wrote: post #139
andrei_says_ wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you point out the straw-man argument? Does making it more difficult to get drugs prevent people suffering addiction from getting them? This is precisely one of the presumptions I was addressing. Also, one of the reasons people fall into addiction is that they feel "on their own".

The strawman being: > people who take drugs would not do so if drugs are unavailable They can still do them, just, away from me (and my children, family, neighbours, community, etc) to a big risk to themselves. They alone should bear that risk. They should be looked down upon to deter other people from trying. Making something super risky does, believe it or not, deter people. Not all the people, but deters quite a l…

> Making something super risky does, believe it or not, deter people. Not all the people, but deters quite a lot of them.

Sure, it deters one chunk of people, but at the same time encourages a large amount of, arguably more risk prone (think teenagers rebelling) , people due to the allure of forbidden fruit.

The people you manage to discourage are likely the people that wouldn't have had issues with drugs in the first place, even if they were partaking.

Re: Shedding light on the dark web

#142

Post by hasenj »

Tiksi wrote: post #141
hasenj wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The strawman being: > people who take drugs would not do so if drugs are unavailable They can still do them, just, away from me (and my children, family, neighbours, community, etc) to a big risk to themselves. They alone should bear that risk. They should be looked down upon to deter other people from trying. Making something super risky does, believe it or not, deter people. Not all the people, but deters quite a l…

> Making something super risky does, believe it or not, deter people. Not all the people, but deters quite a lot of them. Sure, it deters one chunk of people, but at the same time encourages a large amount of, arguably more risk prone (think teenagers rebelling) , people due to the allure of forbidden fruit. The people you manage to discourage are likely the people that wouldn't have had issues with drugs in the firs…

It's not just kids rebelling. It has all to do with communities breaking down and social relations deteriorating.

Teenagers in say, Japan, wouldn't so much rebel by using drugs.

There are tons of less dangerous ways for teenagers to rebel. If kids in your community are rebelling by using dangerous drugs, you have a much more deeper problem.

Re: Shedding light on the dark web

#143

Post by arca_vorago »

Constitutionally the government doesn't have any right to tell a person what they can and can't do with their body so long as it only affects them and doesn't impact the rights of another.

It's a slippery slope argument that could be applied to all kinds of things. People need to remember the Constitution and its foundation of natural rights, that it was created to protect those natural rights, not to establish any rights.

Re: Shedding light on the dark web

#144

Post by PeCaN »

jshevek wrote: post #125
Cshelton wrote: post #31

Sellers of drugs, will ALWAYS sell drugs, both illegal and legal. Buyers/Users of drugs will ALWAYS buy/use drugs, illegal or legal. It is an interaction between humans of Earth, no government or entity, no system or blocks will ever stop it. Shut down the internet, it will continue. Short of a massive purge of life, drugs will never go away. If you somehow...were able to shut down the "darkweb", it would move into s…

I agree with your criticism of the war on drugs, but I'm surprised at this hyperbole: > Sellers of drugs, will ALWAYS sell drugs, both illegal and legal. Are you saying that 3,000 years from now, neohumans will be using addictive chemicals that damage their body in order to modify their brain chemistry and induce related experiences? Can't we illustrate the uselessness of the war on drugs without resorting to stateme…

> Are you saying that 3,000 years from now, neohumans will be using addictive chemicals that damage their body in order to modify their brain chemistry and induce related experiences?

s/chemicals/electric currents/g or s/chemicals/embedded microprocessors/g or whatever and then you're just debating what semantically constitutes a ‘drug’.

So… yeah, I can get behind drugs being a thing 3000 years from now. They were a thing 3000 years ago and seem to have only gotten more prevalent.

Re: Shedding light on the dark web

#145

Post by alphydan »

idlewords wrote: post #44
hx87 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even according to that article, Prohibition only worked in a public health sense if you considered a reduction in alcohol consumption an absolute public health good in itself. I don't know about you, but drinking 50 gallons a year of legitimate, old school, high-quality pre-prohibition beer and wine doesn't exactly sound worse than drinking 25 gallons a year of moonshine from questionable sources.

It is an absolute good, in that death rates from alcoholism and its diseases are directly related to consumption rates. Cirrhosis, for example, fell by some 20%. But there are also follow-on effects, like the death of saloon culture, a drop in domestic violence, and lower infant mortality. This stuff is documented, so you don't actually have to deduce it from first principles. http://eh.net/eha/wp-content/uploads/201…

>> death of saloon culture, a drop in domestic violence, and lower infant mortality

Didn't all those things happen in other countries which didn't implement prohibition? Are you sure it wasn't a natural evolution of society rather than a direct cause-effect from making alcohol harder to get?

Re: Shedding light on the dark web

#146

Post by wamatt »

mindcrime wrote: post #89
bduerst wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is that proof of conspiracy? Civil asset forfeiture laws could fall subject to the same "status quo" problem as drug laws. Even then there are states who are taking steps to change them (e.g. CA SB 443 revote in Aug 2016), which could also be said about marijuana decriminalization.

It's not so much a conspiracy per-se, as a case where people, who might otherwise support changing the system, don't do so out of self-interest. At the very least, a lot of people are incentivized to remain silent and accept the status quo as is, even if their personal feelings might lead them down a different path.

Would be great if we had a word for this. The word 'conspiracy' tends to derail conversations because as you say, it doesn't quite fit.

Re: Shedding light on the dark web

#147

Post by ThomPete »

chc wrote: post #47
ThomPete wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. The answer none of the people who are for the criminalization is why should a victimless action be considered a crime. Why should otherwise law abiding citizens be criminalized for something as innocent as smoking weed. Even harder drugs would be much easier and economically better, dealt with if it was legalized.

Grouping weed in with meth and bath salts doesn't seem like the foundation for a rational argument.

It's a moral question first IMO.

Re: Shedding light on the dark web

#148

Post by Tiksi »

hasenj wrote: post #142
Tiksi wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Making something super risky does, believe it or not, deter people. Not all the people, but deters quite a lot of them. Sure, it deters one chunk of people, but at the same time encourages a large amount of, arguably more risk prone (think teenagers rebelling) , people due to the allure of forbidden fruit. The people you manage to discourage are likely the people that wouldn't have had issues with drugs in the firs…

It's not just kids rebelling. It has all to do with communities breaking down and social relations deteriorating. Teenagers in say, Japan, wouldn't so much rebel by using drugs. There are tons of less dangerous ways for teenagers to rebel. If kids in your community are rebelling by using dangerous drugs, you have a much more deeper problem.

Either I misunderstood you or you misunderstood me, my points were:

1) By making something illegal, it makes it more attractive to people looking to rebel because it makes it an "edgy" forbidden fruit. For example, teenagers are stereotypically rebellious and making a drug illegal may encourage drug use instead of discouraging it.

2) The people that wouldn't use drugs due to them being illegal likely wouldn't have issues with drug abuse even if they were legal, though they may occasionally use them.

Re: Shedding light on the dark web

#149

Post by colemickens »

at-fates-hands wrote: post #110
themartorana wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A majority of Americans support marijuana legalization: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/03/25/suppo... The original banning of marijuana is ridiculous and riddled with racism and xenophobia: http://www.salon.com/2015/07/02/the_real_reason_marijuana_is... This is just marijuana. Drug legality and policy is mired in racism and money politics. It is just as conspiracy-theory as it sounds.

>> This is just marijuana. I would hasten to say this. I totally support a lot of the legalization for medicinal purposes but there's still way too much of this happening: Driving while high on marijuana causing spike in fatal accidents - http://www.today.com/health/driving-while-high-marijuana-cau... Police: Driver Was High Before Crash That Killed Massachusetts State Trooper - http://www.necn.com/news/new-england/D…

I had a friend wreck his car because he was distracted by eating. Ban eating!

If only driving under the influence of cannabis were illegal in those states... er.

Re: Shedding light on the dark web

#150

Post by dwaltrip »

hasenj wrote: post #142
Tiksi wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Making something super risky does, believe it or not, deter people. Not all the people, but deters quite a lot of them. Sure, it deters one chunk of people, but at the same time encourages a large amount of, arguably more risk prone (think teenagers rebelling) , people due to the allure of forbidden fruit. The people you manage to discourage are likely the people that wouldn't have had issues with drugs in the firs…

It's not just kids rebelling. It has all to do with communities breaking down and social relations deteriorating. Teenagers in say, Japan, wouldn't so much rebel by using drugs. There are tons of less dangerous ways for teenagers to rebel. If kids in your community are rebelling by using dangerous drugs, you have a much more deeper problem.

You do realize not all illegal drugs are dangerous when used properly? Some can actually be quite beneficial, have no proven long term negative effects, and can improve quality of life. The best example of this is psilocybin. There is some great research lately on guided therapy sessions that make use of it.
Post reply on HN