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

Dream Vendor "Canna_Bars" Sentenced to Prison

darknetlive.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 343 posts

Re: Dream Vendor "Canna_Bars" Sentenced to Prison

#141

Post by rhexs »

bunfunton wrote: post #56
HoveringOrb wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I want to agree with this, but I've seen firsthand how meth heads bring down everyone around them.

Meth isn’t life destroying poison sorry to inform you. It’s a benefit for me and many others. Meth is the only thing that treats my adhd without horrible side effects, it’s the smoothest calmest most effective solution. 10mg / day orally. I can’t afford the outragous out of pocket price for desoxyn per month. Moreover, after initially being prescribed it and having great results, after moving I can’t find any psychia…

Meth isn’t a life destroying poison because you’re addicted to it? Is that really the argument?

Re: Dream Vendor "Canna_Bars" Sentenced to Prison

#142

Post by belorn »

bunfunton wrote: post #42
aristophenes wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Meth isn’t life destroying poison sorry to inform you. I take 10mg for ADHD a day and it’s saved my life when all other alternatives have failed. I would argue the bad cases you’ve seen are from people with no self control. Why should the government be able to tell you what you can and cannot put into your own body? Better, let people do what they want as long as they don’t hurt anybody else and educate them.

> Why should the government be able to tell you what you can and cannot put into your own body?

The answer to that question that I see is that the government is responsible to step in when someone else get hurt under humanitarian obligations. If you make someone responsible for an outcome then they will likely want to implement rules to reduce their own risks.

The rules should of course be proportional to the risk and balanced. It make sense that drugs and driving should not be combined and which outcome can't be fixed afterward. Parenting and drugs are also a pretty problematic area, but it is difficult for the government to make a law against that combination without banning drugs completely. If people took drugs while working with heavy equipment, makes decisions that impact people, work within health care or education, then there is an additional increased risk that the government is expected to manage.

ADHD medicine, especially the non-self medicated versions, have the opposite effect for the government. It reduces the risk that they have to step. If all the other alternatives have failed and you found a solution that do work then that is good and the law might then need to change to incorporate that success. It doesn't however change the reason why the government might still want to tell you what you can and cannot put into your own body.

Where I live we also have universal health care and meth stresses the heart quite a lot. The result is that when the heart start to fall apart it is the government that has to pay for repairs, and those are often quite expensive surgeries that need to be redone every few years. I am no doctor so I can't answer if 10mg is small enough to be safe, but if I was taking it I would find a doctor and do regular heart checkups.

Re: Dream Vendor "Canna_Bars" Sentenced to Prison

#143

Post by save_ferris »

blunte wrote: post #14
antihero wrote: post #2

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.

> The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.

- John Ehrlichman, Domestic Policy Chief for Richard Nixon, in a 1994 Interview for Harpers Magazine[0]

0: https://www.vox.com/2016/3/22/11278760/war-on-drugs-racism-n...

Re: Dream Vendor "Canna_Bars" Sentenced to Prison

#144

Post by lixtra »

tchaffee wrote: post #41
aristophenes wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Prohibition doesn't work for meth or heroin either. Making them freely available under doctor supervision is what works. Switzerland did it and an out of control heroin problem went away and especially important, usage among young people plummeted. Yes it costs money to treat a medical problem. It costs way more money to treat medical problems as something else. Let's go with the most effective solution even if "free…

> Switzerland did it and an out of control heroin problem went away and especially important, usage among young people plummeted.

You still go to prison in Switzerland for selling heroine on the street. Also there still is a heroine problem though arguably smaller than it used to be.

Re: Dream Vendor "Canna_Bars" Sentenced to Prison

#145

Post by detaro »

slim wrote: post #140
jasoneckert wrote: post #78

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.…

this is not news. in 2008 CCC published finger prints of Angela Merkel https://www.wired.com/2008/03/hackers-publish/

> in 2008 CCC published finger prints of Angela Merkel

The article you link neither talks about a fingerprint of Angela Merkel nor about a fingerprint recovered from a photograph.

(But a CCC group did indeed years later show a politicians fingerprint recovered from a photo, but again not Merkels)

Re: Dream Vendor "Canna_Bars" Sentenced to Prison

#146

Post by BTCOG »

aristophenes wrote: post #16
antihero wrote: post #2

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…

I understand it will seem that I am playing devil's advocate here, but the dose makes the poison. How are you to know that the folks buying the methamphetamine are not in fact experienced microdosers who are taking functional 5-10mg doses for productivity or ADD? While I have known methamphetamine users to take things too far, I've known far more heavy alcoholics who ruin their lives and their families lives dealing with them drinking each and every day. Aside from that, the government has no right to tell another man what type of substance he puts in his body unless he is doing harm to others.

Re: Dream Vendor "Canna_Bars" Sentenced to Prison

#147

Post by thaumasiotes »

tchaffee wrote: post #41
aristophenes wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Prohibition doesn't work for meth or heroin either. Making them freely available under doctor supervision is what works. Switzerland did it and an out of control heroin problem went away and especially important, usage among young people plummeted. Yes it costs money to treat a medical problem. It costs way more money to treat medical problems as something else. Let's go with the most effective solution even if "free…

> Also consider that methamphetamine is not "life destroying poison". Addiction is the medical condition that destroys lives.

It might not sound like it, but this is nothing but a tautology. Interfering with the person's life was just the definition of addiction.

This was obviously-dumb enough that the DSM-V gave up on the word "addiction" entirely.

Re: Dream Vendor "Canna_Bars" Sentenced to Prison

#148

Post by squarefoot »

blunte wrote: post #14
antihero wrote: post #2

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.

> There is considerable information back from the 80s to suggest that the US war on drugs was actually a system to enable racial discrimination.

It also was a way to increase the private jails business, which in fact peaked during the 80s, but the racial and political discrimination stands too. The following piece from the Wikipedia article about the War on Drugs is telling.

"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."

— John Ehrlichman (White House Counsel and Domestic Affair advisor during the Nixon administration)

Re: Dream Vendor "Canna_Bars" Sentenced to Prison

#149

Post by umvi »

tchaffee wrote: post #41
aristophenes wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Prohibition doesn't work for meth or heroin either. Making them freely available under doctor supervision is what works. Switzerland did it and an out of control heroin problem went away and especially important, usage among young people plummeted. Yes it costs money to treat a medical problem. It costs way more money to treat medical problems as something else. Let's go with the most effective solution even if "free…

> Prohibition doesn't work for meth or heroin either. Making them freely available under doctor supervision is what works.

Those things can be mutually exclusive though. For example, you could make it so meth/heroin isn't readily available at the local pharmacy/gas station, yet also make it freely available under doctor supervision at rehab centers.

I think many people (myself included) are apprehensive about making drugs totally legal because many law abiding citizens who otherwise would have never touched the drug may whimsically decide to try it at a rough patch in their life just by seeing it on the shelf at the gas station. I am more in favor of decriminalization, but if legalization really is the most effective solution I would like to see advertising completely banned, behind-the-counter only, generic labels only, etc.

Re: Dream Vendor "Canna_Bars" Sentenced to Prison

#150

Post by tchaffee »

TheAdamAndChe wrote: post #135
tchaffee wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well yes there are. We have seen that with both alcohol and sugar. And with alcohol we have seen how horribly wrong it goes when you try to treat a medical problem - addiction - by using the legal system. It doesn't work.

Your comment implies that most people drink alcohol because of addiction, which isn't the case. Most people drink it for novelty or entertainment. Addiction isn't the only reason people take drugs, so only addressing or dissuading addiction wouldn't fix the social problems that arise from ubiquitous drug use.

> Your comment implies that most people drink alcohol because of addiction, which isn't the case.

No it doesn't. You might have wrongly inferred that though.

> Most people drink it for novelty or entertainment.

And? So what? What do you suggest be done differently in the case of alcohol?

> only addressing or dissuading addiction wouldn't fix the social problems that arise from ubiquitous drug use.

Take a look at how Switzerland took an out of control and growing youth heroin use problem and turned it into a medical issue that young people have zero interest in.

Also what are are the exact "social problems" you are trying to fix that come from wide spread drug use? Please give concrete examples. Because based on history, I'm almost certain the problems you are trying to fix won't get fixed by making things against the law. The legal system is not the only tool in the toolbox.

Post reply on HN