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

211–220 of 343 posts

Re: Dream Vendor "Canna_Bars" Sentenced to Prison

#211

Post by three_legs »

pmachinery wrote: post #52
blunte wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 motivation for fictitious wars against bogeymen is to empower and bankroll law enforcement while diminishing the civil rights of citizens. Like the war on terror, the decades long war on drugs has been a roaring success.

I'm seeing the same happening for covid - governments and police using it as an opportunity to gain more control and power without real justification, only the excuse of "for health safety".

Re: Dream Vendor "Canna_Bars" Sentenced to Prison

#212

Post by notassigned »

ciarannolan wrote: post #176
mabbo wrote: post #171

> Porras also admitted possessing a Model A uzi-style pistol; a MAK 90; and an S&W .44 caliber revolver. Although all weapons in Porras’ possession were legal firearms (the uzi-style pistol used post ban parts), a felony conviction for possession with intent precluded firearm ownership. Can someone explain this part to me. Was he previously convicted of a crime that precluded ownership? Or are the police able to take…

Felons cannot own guns in the US. There's nothing complicated about it.

Well they can, they just aren't allowed to...

Re: Dream Vendor "Canna_Bars" Sentenced to Prison

#213

Post by nip180 »

tchaffee wrote: post #195
nip180 wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s absurd and incorrect. It’s significantly safer to expose an unborn child to sugar than alcohol, cocaine, meth, or heroin.

It is not significantly safer. If we are comparing like to like, then we are not talking about a one time exposure, we are talking about addiction and regular exposure. Addiction to sugar will almost always result in a high BMI. "Having a high BMI during pregnancy has been linked to an increased risk of various health problems for a baby, including: Birth defects Being significantly larger than average (fetal macroso…

People addicted and regularly consuming alcohol, meth (smoked, snorted, or injected), street heroin, and cocaine all suffer from significantly worse side effects than people addicted to sugar.

I’ll grant you that sugar has a higher total social cost, because more people are addicted to it.

Re: Dream Vendor "Canna_Bars" Sentenced to Prison

#214

Post by hourislate »

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…

>Our government provides costly services for people who are incapable of taking care of themselves, and that drug creates a bigger burden on those programs.

Maybe the Gov should go after Coca Cola and Pepsi or McDonald's and Burger King. The fast food industry has caused more health issues peddling their poison than all the drug dealers in the country. An epidemic of obesity and related illnesses from type II diabetes, HBP, Heart Disease, etc have destroyed more families than all the marijuana use could ever.

Re: Dream Vendor "Canna_Bars" Sentenced to Prison

#215

Post by tchaffee »

bunfunton wrote: post #194
belorn wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 an…

Governments shouldn't be responsible for the outcome of their people, the individual should. This is the perspective difference we share. It's really a choice between individual freedom despite possible negative stats "addictions" vs less freedom and more government control while optimizing number of addictions. I value my personal freedom and see no reason why the government should pay for healthcare. In the USA, th…

The vast majority of countries where healthcare is both far cheaper and more effective than in the US have government provided healthcare. Most of those countries also have affordable or free higher education. So the smoking gun would seem to point at US style capitalism and lobbyists rather than government services themselves.

"It doesn't work in the USA" is increasingly very poor evidence when it does work many other places, and often has for over a half a century.

Re: Dream Vendor "Canna_Bars" Sentenced to Prison

#216

Post by nip180 »

lambdaba wrote: post #184
nip180 wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s absurd and incorrect. It’s significantly safer to expose an unborn child to sugar than alcohol, cocaine, meth, or heroin.

That's why I said "most drugs". That being said, there is an epidemic of childhood diabetes and _newborn_ obesity, which is entirely due to mother's high sugar & processed foods diets. It's a serious matter. Also, it's possible to be a long-time user (obviously not a abuser) of heroin or meth (I know it's not exactly comparable but consider people taking adhd meds). I'd take that over abusing sugar, which will cause…

If cost, purity, and consistency of supply (for the drug and all paraphernalia) wasn’t a problem it’s probably safer to consume heroin regularly than consume coca-coal regularly.

With the realities as they are coca-coal is probably safer, but because it’s cheaper, won’t have unexpected adulterants, and you won’t have to invest much time or effort in finding a new supply if your favorite vending machine breaks down.

Re: Dream Vendor "Canna_Bars" Sentenced to Prison

#217

Post by bunfunton »

unnouinceput wrote: post #136
non-entity wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In what world does purchasing from a DNM make you a career criminal? What if I buy a completely legal item?

None. Doubt you find legal items there though. Maybe you find legal items in some parts but illegal in others, like marijuana is now in US. Better have all papers prepared to prove you made the purchase in a legal state though.

Good thing that the government has to prove our guilt instead of we having to prove our innocence.

Re: Dream Vendor "Canna_Bars" Sentenced to Prison

#218

Post by bunfunton »

TheAdamAndChe wrote: post #116
sumedh wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This guy also sold a neurotoxic addictive stimulant(methamphetamine) So should alcohol manufacturers and bartenders be thrown in jail as well?

There is no widespread, easily producable alternative to alcohol. Prohibition is ended not because the drug isn't bad, but because it's truly trivial to make it, making enforcement impossible. Meth has several good alternatives just as easy to manufacture(for big companies with the right precursors) that aren't neurotoxic. Think adderall, methylphenidate, modafinil, etc. Those bring the stimulation without destroying…

All of those have distinctly different effects and, in the case of ADHD, all work subpar with worse side effects. The reason why people get so fucked up on meth is BECAUSE it's so safe that you can smoke half a gram w/o a problem. Also, meth is the easiest to manufacture out of all of the above. Will give you that meth is the most addictive.

Re: Dream Vendor "Canna_Bars" Sentenced to Prison

#219

Post by soulofmischief »

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.…

Anyone engaging in legally questionable activity who didn't already consider this attack vector and take it seriously simply haven't been paying attention and have bad OPSEC.

The possibility of this kind of attack has always been mathematically possible and it doesn't take machine learning or computer vision to do it. It boils down to basic linear transformation.

There's a long history of attempts to identify persons by photos of fingerprints for evidence, there's just a level of uncertainty involved which make it more suited for gathering intelligence than court-submitted evidence.

Re: Dream Vendor "Canna_Bars" Sentenced to Prison

#220

Post by luckylion »

umvi wrote: post #210
luckylion wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> because many law abiding citizens who otherwise would have never touched the drug may whimsically decide to try it They likely wouldn't. Most drugs aren't socially accepted, the gas station wouldn't stock them (and that's usually not what people ask for when they talk about legalization). Consider LSD. It's illegal, heavily so. But there's 1P-LSD, it's a "research chemical" and very similar to LSD. It has been lega…

> They likely wouldn't. Most drugs aren't socially accepted, the gas station wouldn't stock them I don't know, I'm still not convinced. I think legalization is an important step on the path to social acceptance. Examples: Marijuana, abortion, gay marriage These things used to be socially unacceptable and illegal, but they are now socially acceptable and legal Some drugs might not be socially acceptable right now , bu…

> Examples: Marijuana, abortion, gay marriage

> These things used to be socially unacceptable and illegal, but they are now socially acceptable and legal

And you don't get Marijuana or an abortion at the gas station. But you might be able to get gay married at a gas station in Vegas ;)

I don't think they're anywhere close to socially acceptable yet, outside of young and very progressive people. You're not going to talk to your manager at a bank about getting an abortion or smoking weed, but you can absolutely talk to them about smoking cigars or some new whisky. They're less ostracized, I'd say, but I see your point.

I'm not sure it's legality and availability changes frequency. Abortions aren't becoming more common, they peaked in the 80ies (in the US) and have been falling since. I don't know the current numbers, but a few years ago they recorded the lowest numbers since they started recording them in the early 70ies.

> And convenience stores would certainly stock drugs if there was demand and they were allowed to.

If they were socially accepted at the level of Alcohol, maybe, but that'll take decades if not centuries. There's a demand for sex toys, and they're legal, but convenience stores don't usually have them stocked. It's changing, but very slowly, because society is much more socially conservative than Hollywood and media companies reflect back, and most people don't want dildos and life-size sex dolls presented where they shop with their children. I believe the same is true for drugs.

Also, there's no reason why they wouldn't be sold in special stores, and that's a big plus for legalization: you can regulate what is legal. You can put age restrictions on what's legal. And, from a state perspective: you can tax what's legal.

Post reply on HN