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

Granting pardon for the offense of simple possession of or use of marijuana

whitehouse.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 351 posts

Re: Granting pardon for the offense of simple possession of or use of marijuana

#261

Post by tptacek »

swells34 wrote: post #159
tptacek wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is not why fentanyl kills.

Fentanyl is administered daily by medical professionals in all sorts of situations. If "not understanding it's strength" is not what causes people to overdose on it, then why aren't millions of people dying from its administration in a medical setting?

The claim upthread is that regulation in labeling would materially curb fentanyl deaths. It would not. Materially restricting access to high-test opiates might, but we have ample experience from well-labeled high-test opiates to suggest that uncontrolled access to any of them is likely to be deadly.

If by "regulation" you mean "restriction", then, sure, I buy that, stipulating that it's somehow possible to restrict access. But what the preceding commenter meant by "regulation" was labeling. No, that won't work.

Re: Granting pardon for the offense of simple possession of or use of marijuana

#262

Post by tcmart14 »

torstenvl wrote: post #223
dragonwriter wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't understand why he's singling out military veterans not to receive this pardon. Nothing in the text of the pardon does that is "singling out" veterans. It doesn't pardon UCMJ violations, but it absolutely includes military veterans with federal civilian convictions (unless they were in unsatisfactory immigration status at the time of the offense.) Not including military offenses is a different thing than sin…

Fine. I don't understand why he's singling out military veterans with military convictions not to receive this pardon. It's significant disparate treatment in a way that precludes a significant benefit from going to a group of people of whom 100% have served this country. EDIT: And no, Parker v. Levy is not a valid justification for this, as the conduct was equally criminalized in both the military and the civilian w…

It could be because it would prompt a huge pain in the ass process or question of, does their discharge status change? Granted, they dont (at least not during my service or my dad's, to give context I served 2013-2018 and dad 1995-2003) give our dishonorable discharged. But a general discharge or other than honorable (OTH). If these are pardoned UCMJ violations that lead to a discharge, does it prompt to change their discharge from OTH or General to Honorable?

My guess is also the UCMJ is like a separate court system out side of the usual court system. Since military are held. to a 'higher moral standard' and such. Even if it were made legal for citizens, it may not mean military rules are amended to allow use. An example could be Spice. While you could buy spice at a head shop and smoke it, not illegal, the military deemed it against the rules and you could get kicked out for smoking spice.

Re: Granting pardon for the offense of simple possession of or use of marijuana

#263

Post by CyberDildonics »

loeg wrote: post #191
CyberDildonics wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are making a claim then saying you don't have to back it up while making another dubious claim. Among synthetic opioid–involved overdose deaths in 2016, almost 80% involved another drug or alcohol, such as: another opioid, heroin, cocaine, prescription opioids, benzodiazepines, alcohol, psychostimulants, and antidepressants. https://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/deaths/other-drugs.html

FWIW, 2016 is somewhat dated as far as fentanyl goes. It has really exploded since that time. > In 2021, nearly 71,000 drug overdose deaths involving synthetic opioids (other than methadone) occurred in the United States, which is more deaths than from any other type of opioid. Synthetic opioid-involved death rates increased by over 22% from 2020 to 2021 and accounted for nearly 88% of all opioid-involved deaths in 2…

What I posted wasn't about fentanyl. They implied that overdoses happen just as much with prescription pain killers that have consistent doses and what I posted shows that people aren't overdosing on known doses, they die when they combine drugs.

Re: Granting pardon for the offense of simple possession of or use of marijuana

#264

Post by CyberDildonics »

tptacek wrote: post #207
loeg wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The overdoses per abuser from regulated, labeled opiates is on the order of at least 100x lower than illicit opioids. The consistent formulation is hugely safer than street drugs with inconsistent dose.

Assuming arguendo that's true, that's a different argument than the one made upthread.

Assuming double arguendo, you were saying that prescription pain killer dangers are aequalis to street fentanyl and statistics show that is falsus.

Re: Granting pardon for the offense of simple possession of or use of marijuana

#265

Post by 4RealFreedom »

tptacek wrote: post #258
loeg wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. But I am responding to you, not that guy upthread. Your implied claim, as I read it, is that "opioid-ness" is "why fentanyl kills," and there's nothing special going on because we had a bunch of deaths from licit opioids in the early 2000s. But I think that there's actually something special about illicit fentanyl in particular, as opposed to regulated opioids, and dose inconsistency is one plausible difference…

I was responding to a particular argument. I've lost track of what we would be arguing about here. My point was pretty straightforward: high-test opiates don't simply kill because they're unregulated; they do a very good job of killing simply by being widely available at all.

By that logic, we shouldn't have many opiate deaths because they are currently controlled.

Re: Granting pardon for the offense of simple possession of or use of marijuana

#266

Post by tptacek »

4RealFreedom wrote: post #265
tptacek wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was responding to a particular argument. I've lost track of what we would be arguing about here. My point was pretty straightforward: high-test opiates don't simply kill because they're unregulated; they do a very good job of killing simply by being widely available at all.

By that logic, we shouldn't have many opiate deaths because they are currently controlled.

They are not at all meaningfully controlled. There are drive-thru markets for this stuff with people doing traffic control in Chicago, and presumably in every other major market.

Re: Granting pardon for the offense of simple possession of or use of marijuana

#267

Post by 4RealFreedom »

tptacek wrote: post #261
swells34 wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fentanyl is administered daily by medical professionals in all sorts of situations. If "not understanding it's strength" is not what causes people to overdose on it, then why aren't millions of people dying from its administration in a medical setting?

The claim upthread is that regulation in labeling would materially curb fentanyl deaths. It would not. Materially restricting access to high-test opiates might, but we have ample experience from well-labeled high-test opiates to suggest that uncontrolled access to any of them is likely to be deadly. If by "regulation" you mean "restriction", then, sure, I buy that, stipulating that it's somehow possible to restrict a…

How do you know that? We can't eliminate opiate deaths completely but we can make them as safe as possible. Restricting access isn't working.

Re: Granting pardon for the offense of simple possession of or use of marijuana

#268

Post by tptacek »

4RealFreedom wrote: post #267
tptacek wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The claim upthread is that regulation in labeling would materially curb fentanyl deaths. It would not. Materially restricting access to high-test opiates might, but we have ample experience from well-labeled high-test opiates to suggest that uncontrolled access to any of them is likely to be deadly. If by "regulation" you mean "restriction", then, sure, I buy that, stipulating that it's somehow possible to restrict a…

How do you know that? We can't eliminate opiate deaths completely but we can make them as safe as possible. Restricting access isn't working.

Because we had (and still do have) an epidemic of fatal abuse of labeled, regulated opioids. I'm not saying restriction works either; I'm rejecting the pat solutionism of the original comment and acknowledging how difficult the problem is. Maybe legalization is a good idea, maybe not; what it certainly isn't is a solution to opioid deaths.

Re: Granting pardon for the offense of simple possession of or use of marijuana

#269

Post by DANmode »

Levitz wrote: post #225
DANmode wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Normalizing the use of the equipment guarantees additional future domestic purchases, subscriptions, and other support revenue.

Does it really? Do people really think "Ah but of course the military needs more money, it's given a good use, since the police get it afterwards"?

That’s not even an uncharitable interpretation of what I wrote.

I was talking about the domestic law enforcement continuing to use the stuff they got for cheap/federally subsidized, or free, because “it’s effective.”

Re: Granting pardon for the offense of simple possession of or use of marijuana

#270

Post by tptacek »

CyberDildonics wrote: post #264
tptacek wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Assuming arguendo that's true, that's a different argument than the one made upthread.

Assuming double arguendo, you were saying that prescription pain killer dangers are aequalis to street fentanyl and statistics show that is falsus.

I don't believe it much matters. The death stats on oxycodone are staggering. I'm sure the street drugs are much more dangerous dose-for-dose, but given free access to oxycodone, you're just as likely to die, perhaps on a marginally longer schedule (there are survivor high-functioning maintenance addicts on both natural and synthetic/street opioids, obviously). Remember as well that a great many street fentanyl deaths were pts started on regulated, labeled opioids who spun off into addiction; they transitioned to fentanyl because it was easier to get, not because it was stronger.
Post reply on HN