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

The Imprisoner’s Dilemma

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–29 of 29 posts

Re: The Imprisoner’s Dilemma

#21

Post by curiousgal »

merpnderp wrote: post #17
SquishyPanda23 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a long-time fan of legalizing drugs, but it's not entirely an easy problem to solve. Eliminating the black market is good. Having huge corporations pushing drugs is maybe not so good, or at least we should think through the consequences.

Exactly, we'd want to model it on successful systems. Like having drugs dispensed at government facilities where users were offered counseling and rehab, and an area specifically for getting high. We don't want there to be tv advertisements for heroin or meth targeting kids (or anyone).

The U.S. couldn't model its healthcare system on more successful systems, if those in power have such disregard for human life, what makes you think they'd think of drug users'.

Re: The Imprisoner’s Dilemma

#22

Post by leetcrew »

merpnderp wrote: post #17
SquishyPanda23 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a long-time fan of legalizing drugs, but it's not entirely an easy problem to solve. Eliminating the black market is good. Having huge corporations pushing drugs is maybe not so good, or at least we should think through the consequences.

Exactly, we'd want to model it on successful systems. Like having drugs dispensed at government facilities where users were offered counseling and rehab, and an area specifically for getting high. We don't want there to be tv advertisements for heroin or meth targeting kids (or anyone).

> Like having drugs dispensed at government facilities where users were offered counseling and rehab, and an area specifically for getting high.

I've read that this approach has been pretty successful where it's been tried. the theory is that doing it in a controlled environment removes a lot of the "fun" for the users so more of them eventually quit. additionally, it makes the use of hard drugs less visible, so fewer people end up picking up the habit.

I have to suspect that there's a point where you introduce too much friction though. if it's too annoying to go to the government facility, it might become tempting to just buy illegally. for instance, there is still a market for bootleg cigarettes even though anyone 18/21 or older can buy them at any gas station or convenience store. for some people it's worth buying them illegally to either evade the tax or purchase less than a full pack at once. I've also heard from my friends in CA that there is still a thriving illicit weed market for similar reasons.

Re: The Imprisoner’s Dilemma

#23

Post by pmiller2 »

Vinnl wrote: post #16
pantaloony wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately “adequate support to help people reintegrate so going back to crime isn’t their best option” looks a lot like “rewarding criminals” to a good portion of the electorate. Maybe in part because social services in general are so bad that anything at all looks like a lot of aid. Dunno if it’s still the case but I at one point a tax guy asked me if I’d been convicted of (IIRC) any drug offenses because if I h…

I recently tried to buy travel insurance. I had to check a box that I'd never been suspected of criminal activities, even if I was found to not be guilty (!), otherwise I wouldn't have been allowed to buy the insurance. This was in the Netherlands, btw.

That’s weird. I’ve never been convicted of anything, but I was a suspect once, briefly. It’s funny to realize that could actually impact my life in any way.

Also, I wonder how the insurance company would ever know someone was a suspect, if they weren’t arrested. Sometimes, suspects don’t even realize they’re suspects.

Re: The Imprisoner’s Dilemma

#24

Post by leetcrew »

Sharlin wrote: post #5
jojobas wrote: post #3

The people advocating to release ~1 million violent criminals are least likely to suffer at their hands. Hand on heart, nobody wants to leave next to a convicted murderer or drug dealer. Mass incarceration is a symptom, abolishing it is not a cure.

Drug dealer? Seriously? You mean those people who happened to sell a couple joints worth of marijuana to a friend while black? Or those who just happened to possess a bit too much to be considered "for personal use"?

you're right, the range of situations that can be considered "selling drugs" is pretty absurd. for instance, if a bunch of kids pool their money to get a better deal on a larger amount, the one who actually makes the buy and splits it up can be charged with distribution even if they don't make any money off the transaction.

that said, I don't think most people who aren't a part of that world would want to live next to an actual dealer. in some ways the "retail" folks can be the worst to live near. if they sell out of their home, it brings a lot of undesirable traffic to the area.

Re: The Imprisoner’s Dilemma

#25

Post by lowdose »

chias wrote: post #20
Vinnl wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I recently tried to buy travel insurance. I had to check a box that I'd never been suspected of criminal activities, even if I was found to not be guilty (!), otherwise I wouldn't have been allowed to buy the insurance. This was in the Netherlands, btw.

Hi Vinnl! I hereby inform you that I suspect you have committed a crime at some point. Congratulations you are now ineligible >:]

The ultimate free lunch in insurance.

Re: The Imprisoner’s Dilemma

#27

Post by thephyber »

jojobas wrote: post #3

The people advocating to release ~1 million violent criminals are least likely to suffer at their hands. Hand on heart, nobody wants to leave next to a convicted murderer or drug dealer. Mass incarceration is a symptom, abolishing it is not a cure.

> Mass incarceration is a symptom, abolishing it is not a cure.

"Let's not let the cure be worse than the disease".

The issue is not nearly as cut and dry as you express. Not all prisoners are violent criminals. Even violent criminals get released at the end of their sentence.

Mass incarceration is an efficient stick when the better solution is an effective carrot.

Re: The Imprisoner’s Dilemma

#28

Post by kjs3 »

suryabeep wrote: post #18
kjs3 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

News: Maybe release relatively small number of non-violent offenders in California. Fake News: "Those people" want a million violent criminals back on the street! Murders and drug dealers in your back yard! You don't want "those people" running things. You have a bright future as a republican spin doctor.

I agree with the sentiment of your comment but let's please keep the discussion civil here on HN and refrain from personal attacks like "you have a bright future as a republican spin doctor".

Sure Mr. Karma of 6 with 5 comments and no submissions. By all means tell me how things are supposed to be on HN. Did I hit a little close to home?

Re: The Imprisoner’s Dilemma

#29

Post by Vinnl »

pmiller2 wrote: post #23
Vinnl wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I recently tried to buy travel insurance. I had to check a box that I'd never been suspected of criminal activities, even if I was found to not be guilty (!), otherwise I wouldn't have been allowed to buy the insurance. This was in the Netherlands, btw.

That’s weird. I’ve never been convicted of anything, but I was a suspect once, briefly. It’s funny to realize that could actually impact my life in any way. Also, I wonder how the insurance company would ever know someone was a suspect, if they weren’t arrested. Sometimes, suspects don’t even realize they’re suspects.

I don't think there able to know - after all, I had to manually tick the box.
Post reply on HN