301–310 of 393 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I will never understand how people in the US are okay with this. Don't people care about justice at all over there?
You see giant protests occupying cities for weeks and your first thought is that americans are totally OK with the state of things? All those folks on the street in Hong kong - they must just be out there celebrating their loss of liberties! It's a big party!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is an unacceptable risk for people who didn’t consent, but that’s a different matter. We should punish people who give others dangerous things without consent.
Well, you can get into trouble if you start playing around with radioactive material, too. I think "The Radioactive Boy Scout" has been mentioned on HN a few times. I think a reason why dangerous things are regulated is because even though they don't always lead to harm, the harm can be grave and impossible to undo. Even if an unexpected trip doesn't technically lead to permanent brain damage, if the behavior were mi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Friend of a friend got caught with two sheets in the 90s and I think he got 20 years for each one. Downstate Illinois. My recollection was the weight of the blotter paper was considered as the drug itself and that easily increased the federal sentencing guidelines.
Just how the feds when weighing pot plants weighted them with pots and all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When I was arrested and searched the police didn’t even find the 200 tabs I had on me. They found everything else, but LSD is incredibly easy to hide from regular law enforcement. They found everything else, but in typical stupid-police fashion, they ballsed that up too and ended up entering a nolle prosequi (do not prosecute) at the district court level. The police prosecutor was sufficiently annoyed, and I was suff…
> but LSD is incredibly easy to hide from regular law enforcement Not that I intend to leverage that knowledge, but you can't just write this and leave it at that. Why so? I've never seen any LSD, so I am not sure why that would be.
I found this line from the article particularly interesting: “The court concluded that the 20 years served are sufficient for meeting the goals of incapacitation, deterrence, retribution, and rehabilitation.” Deterrence and rehabilitation (yeah, right) I knew were “goals” of the US prison system, but I never realized that “incapacitation” and “retribution” were actual legally-stated goals.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I will never understand how people in the US are okay with this. Don't people care about justice at all over there?
Not really. When you ignore all the marketing material about "freedom" and such that accompanies a discussion about the US, you see that we are an extremely authoritarian country.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How come we hear about dangerous meth-heads and crack-heads, but not about coke-heads?
The thing that makes meth heads and crack heads dangerous is primarily that the users are desperate for money to feed their addiction and thus more likely to commit crimes to make money. Coke heads probably started out fairly wealthy, since it's a more expensive drug, so they are less likely to resort to theft to pay for their addiction. It's probably also somewhat of a social class issue. Crack and meth users are pr…
Oh wait, here we go: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20560836/
[...] The likelihood of violence associated with crack cocaine users was greater compared to powdered cocaine users at the bivariate level. However, these differences were almost uniformly statistically nonsignificant when demographic, mood and non-cocaine substance use disorders were controlled for. [...]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How come we hear about dangerous meth-heads and crack-heads, but not about coke-heads?
Meth and crack are both cheaper than coke, which results in class/socioeconomic effects in who uses them as well as how they're portrayed in media and handled by government.
Plus the duration of the high means that you'd necessarily have to spend more time (relatively) chasing that high or ways to achieve it.
For some reasons the feds in the 90s were unusually interested in prosecuting psychedelics. I'm of the opinion that all drugs should be legal, but even if I wasn't, I think I would still question why LSD manufacturers were getting such long sentences around that time. Never really made sense to me.
The Government is very familiar with LSD, having used it for a wide variety of research over an extended period of time. LSD has proven exceedingly effective at behavior modification, and has already been put to use by the wrong hands. So, they know better than anyone as to how dangerous it is: https://www.amazon.com/Tom-ONeill-ebook/dp/B07K6J273Q This is why the sentencing was so harsh.
Please provide evidence for this claim.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Counterpoint: PFOA / PFAS long chain polymers even at extremely low levels act as endocrine disruptors. DuPont leaks this stuff at its plants, people living near by have elevated types of specific cancers, and nothing is done. If you can get 20 years for two sheets of LSD, I’d expect life in prison for everyone at the companies who continue to leak this toxic stuff, and full payment of affected people:s medical bills…
Presumably they aren't dumping beyond the legal limits. That's how our system works. The EPA or other agencies attempt to determine what's safe, the government makes some regulations, and if you follow those regulations, you don't go to prison. Even if the regulations are bad.
They have and probably still do though[1]. Lived only a couple hours from the location of the film and my wife grew up in a city on the Ohio River they were dumping chemicals into. Was in the local paper here almost weekly during the late 90s and early 00s.