101–110 of 343 posts
What I find the most interesting about this article is that someone was able to be identified using a picture of their fingerprints. Thus, any photos posted online could be scoured for identification information. And with computer vision technologies becoming more mature, it means that regular video footage of people could identify them the same way in seconds or less using a wide variety of different visual traits.…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. We live in a society. If I'm expected to help pick up the pieces when you self-destruct, it's absolutely my business.
There's a simple solution, don't socialise safety nets and let people pay for their mistakes or misfortunes. It may sound cold but at least you don't have to steal money from all the people who actually create value and you don't have to pay for bureaucracy
Bob dies and the company goes under. A few of his customers can't find alternate suppliers and go under as well. Some products cease to exist; others become more expensive. A huge loss to the market.
We all pay for others' mistakes and misfortunes.
'So we have these fingerprints, and we think they belong to this guy we already have prints on file for. Can you give us a yes/no answer if they match up?' seems like a pretty low bar for evidence. Seems like the kind of thing that could heavily skew towards telling you what you want to hear. Maybe someone else knows if it actually works like that, the writeup made it sound like that to me. I'm just some guy who saw…
My understanding from skimming the article is, they only identified the suspect from fingerprints. After identification they did surveillance and gathered additional evidence.
It doesn't sound like that to me, but maybe I am misunderstanding what a comparative analysis would entail.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He also had a prior felony, sold meth, sold Xanax, and had an Uzi. Not someone you’d want to date your daughter.
I guess the thing is, if drugs were legal the chances are lots of drug dealers would be doing some other crime. There are obivously drug dealers that sell just to pay for their own drug usage. But there are lots and lots are in it for the money and choose crime because it's easy to get into.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In Finland manslaughter is maximum 6 years in prison. This guy sold plants.
This guy also sold a neurotoxic addictive stimulant(methamphetamine), supported Mexican cartels by doing so, and had guns while being an ex-felon.
So should alcohol manufacturers and bartenders be thrown in jail as well?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I personally want drug-dealing gun-wielding ex-felons to be put in prison. Plus he only got 5 years, which isn't a long sentence in the US.
Then you should waste your own personal money on it. It has made the problem worse. The illegal drug trade to the US is now almost as big as big oil. It's an industry in the hundreds of $ billions. This type of thinking has created millions of addicts in the USA along with helping make many very rich and powerful criminals globally.
Drug enforcement wouldn't go away if drugs were legalized and regulated.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. We live in a society. If I'm expected to help pick up the pieces when you self-destruct, it's absolutely my business.
There's a simple solution, don't socialise safety nets and let people pay for their mistakes or misfortunes. It may sound cold but at least you don't have to steal money from all the people who actually create value and you don't have to pay for bureaucracy
When someone creates hundreds of millions of dollars in pollution and they have far less in the bank or in profits, who pays for the cleanup costs? You will. Your "simple solution" only fixes small cases of mistakes or misfortune, the easily affordable ones.
And while you might be happy living in a society where you watch someone die on the sidewalk because they should "pay for their mistakes or misfortunes" I think the vast majority of us don't want anything to do with that kind of society. We aren't here to serve the economy, it's here to serve us.
What a colossal waste of time. Prosecuting someone for selling online something that is illegal in a lot of states. Mindblowing how stupid the war on drugs is.
There is considerable information back from the 80s to suggest that the US war on drugs was actually a system to enable racial discrimination. Then some years later, the ear on drugs became associated with the growth of the private prison industry and it's lobbyists. Indeed I provide no references here because it is quite an involved topic and difficult to prove given the publicly available information.
Adam Conove made a whole episode in his show, "Adam ruins everything", about the true reasons why weed is illegal.
Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXPOw2unxy0
Spoiler: it's about giving the government of the US a tool to discriminate black people and mexicans.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then so is your diet and exercise regime my business. I also want to control who you spend time with (for your mental health) and what you consume for entertainment - there will be limits on what you can read and watch and how much. Alcohol is of course no longer ever an option, and many injury prone sports are also forbidden. At any point we predict you might commit a crime, we will jail you first to reduce the cost…
Thank you for at least engaging with what I actually said. Obviously, you must balance the harm of the intervention itself with the harm that the intervention is trying to mitigate. In fact many of your measures are already in place. Civilized society does control your diet, through food regulation. It controls what you watch to some extent - you'll have to go a bit out of your way to find sex and violence. Alcohol i…
No they don't. I can grow my own food and it is perfectly legal and loads of people do exactly that.
> you'll have to go a bit out of your way to find sex and violence.
Hardly. It's all over the internet. Even teens easily find it.
> Alcohol is indeed a restricted substance
Not for adults though, which is what we are talking about here, right?
> any injury-prone sports have been discontinued or modified to be safer
Only commercially. I can engage in the vast majority of the more dangerous version of those sports in my own free time any time I want. Play American football without helmets in my own backyard? Who is going to stop me?
So no, none of the things you mentioned are controlled to the point of being illegal. And even in rare cases where they are illegal (buying raw milk for example), no one gets thrown in jail for five years for doing it, and people do continue to do it and take those risks, and society does continue to pay when things go wrong.
> Obviously, you must balance the harm of the intervention itself with the harm that the intervention is trying to mitigate.
Who decides that? Because I find it difficult to put a measure on the cost of removing so many freedoms trying to make life risk free. It's not a society I would want to live in. I will temper that by saying I'm fully in favor of requiring people to wear masks in public. But only because it's a public emergency and in unusual circumstances I'm flexible. But what you are suggesting is long term and permanent policy.
What a colossal waste of time. Prosecuting someone for selling online something that is illegal in a lot of states. Mindblowing how stupid the war on drugs is.
I can partially understand that point of view for marijuana (though I think it’s important for a functional society to obey laws, and get them changed if they aren’t working instead of just breaking them based on personal preference). But the guy had been selling methamphetamine too, which is life destroying poison. Our government provides costly services for people who are incapable of taking care of themselves, and…
Second, other life destroying poisons include: alcohol, nicotine, sugar, fast food, dopamine hits from social media feedback/gambling/gaming... are you ready for the government to decide your intake for those?
The only thing prohibition does is fund organized crime, and increase the costs of policing by pretending that the "war on drugs" can be won. Taking drugs are part of human culture. It may as well be a war on human behavior.
When you subtract the dangers of dealing with cartels and policing, drug use is another form of escapism. As with any form of escapism, it can reach the point of abuse. We should absolutely have a social safety net for addicts of every sort, and it would be much cheaper than the costs of imprisonment and the war on drugs. Added bonus: actual liberty, instead of slogans on a bumper sticker.
I say this coming from a long line of addicts/alcoholics, including myself. If our drug of choice had been available from the local pharmacist:
- the drugs would have been cheaper and free of more dangerous cutting agents
- gangs/cartels would not make a dime
- we would've spent less time finding them
- some of us would have gone to rehab instead of prison
In a nutshell, even though we are poor, we would have had the same opportunities to get our act together as wealthy addicts.
And no, this isn't a crazy idea. This is how things worked before prohibition.
https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/kicking-ha...