AT&T gives DEA 26 years of phone call records to wage war on drugs • Hacker News Board

Re: AT&T gives DEA 26 years of phone call records to wage war on drugs

#121

Post by tlb » Tue, Sep 03, 2013, 10:02 PM UTC

baddox wrote: post #104

genwin wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it would matter how cheap it is. Even at a dollar a hit a jobless person tends to need to steal to get that dollar, in addition to money for food. I don't think it's a stretch to believe that legal things become more prevalent than illegal things, especially highly addictive things. Believing that requires no more support than disbelieving that.

> I don't think it would matter how cheap it is. I don't see how that's defensible. You seem to be talking only about people with zero money, which is few people even among jobless (even homeless ) people. Surely the price of the drug, all else being equal, would strongly correlate to the number of crimes committed to obtain the drug. > I don't think it's a stretch to believe that legal things become more prevalent t…

By the same logic, the price of food should correlate to the number of crimes committed to obtain it. But far more is spent on food than drugs, and most theft is to buy drugs, so something is different.

The difference is that normal people work at jobs to obtain money for food, but serious drug addicts are incapable of working a regular job and so have to steal to support their drug habit (and for their food as well).

So in fact, crime is proportional to how much drugs interfere with ability to hold a job.

Re: AT&T gives DEA 26 years of phone call records to wage war on drugs

#122

Post by genwin » Tue, Sep 03, 2013, 10:04 PM UTC

shawn-furyan wrote: post #83

genwin wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Coffee addictions don't lead to more violent crime or robbery, as far as I know. Does making meth and crack legal make less crime (violent or robbery) than if their usage was nil? I highly doubt it.

>Does making meth and crack legal make less crime (violent or robbery) than if their usage was nil? That's not one of the available options. I mean, looking back at the article, the spoils of this program are incredibly paltry given the enormity of the data set. Criminalization of drugs and Militarization of enforcement groups is not significantly deterring usage because they are so ineffective even with so many reso…

> Perhaps they would if they were criminalized.

But why would it be criminalized? For that to be justified it needs to be a drain on society in some significant way.

I don't support the current flawed war on drugs, especially forfeiture of property and imprisonment for users. I don't support a war on drugs that are essentially victimless, like on marijuana. I support the ideal war on drugs (one based on evidence to show that it does more good than harm).

Re: AT&T gives DEA 26 years of phone call records to wage war on drugs

#123

Post by lutusp » Tue, Sep 03, 2013, 10:04 PM UTC

genwin wrote: post #119

jlgreco wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You would intensify the pursuit of criminal prosecution of people who find themselves addicted to prescription painkillers? An addiction to morphine is really little different than an addiction to heroin, except society has a greater understanding of addiction to morphine as an illness, not a crime. Treating morphine abusers like we treat heroin users would be devastating to society. It would be a ludicrously sensele…

> You would intensify the pursuit of criminal prosecution of people who find themselves addicted to prescription painkillers? No, rehab for them and all other people addicted to hard drugs. I'd seek criminal prosecution against the pushers who knew or should've known the drugs hurt much more than they help.

> I'd seek criminal prosecution against the pushers who knew or should've known the drugs hurt much more than they help.

You would really prosecute the psychiatrists? Good for you.

"CHILD DRUGGING: PSYCHIATRY DESTROYING LIVES" : http://www.cchr.org/cchr-reports/child-drugging/introduction...

"Rebecca Riley": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebecca_Riley

Quote: "Rebecca Riley (April 11, 2002 – December 13, 2006), the daughter of Michael and Carolyn Riley and resident of Hull, Massachusetts, was found dead in her home after prolonged exposure to various medications, her lungs filled with fluid. The medical examiner's office determined the girl died from "intoxication due to the combined effects" of prescription drugs. Police reports state she was taking 750 milligrams a day of Depakote, 200 milligrams a day of Seroquel, and .35 milligrams a day of Clonidine. Rebecca had been taking the drugs since the age of two for bipolar disorder and ADHD, diagnosed by psychiatrist Kayoko Kifuji of the Tufts-New England Medical Center."

Re: AT&T gives DEA 26 years of phone call records to wage war on drugs

#124

Post by jlgreco » Tue, Sep 03, 2013, 10:06 PM UTC

genwin wrote: post #119

jlgreco wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You would intensify the pursuit of criminal prosecution of people who find themselves addicted to prescription painkillers? An addiction to morphine is really little different than an addiction to heroin, except society has a greater understanding of addiction to morphine as an illness, not a crime. Treating morphine abusers like we treat heroin users would be devastating to society. It would be a ludicrously sensele…

> You would intensify the pursuit of criminal prosecution of people who find themselves addicted to prescription painkillers? No, rehab for them and all other people addicted to hard drugs. I'd seek criminal prosecution against the pushers who knew or should've known the drugs hurt much more than they help.

What, their doctors? Criminal prosecution for people who prescribe morphine?

Re: AT&T gives DEA 26 years of phone call records to wage war on drugs

#125

Post by fnordfnordfnord » Tue, Sep 03, 2013, 10:07 PM UTC

WildUtah wrote: post #97

viggity wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can appreciate where you're coming from with regards to the basic premise of the war on drugs. Like the old adage says: the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The thing that tears me up about it is that some of these drugs (primarily meth and to a lesser degree heroin) completely obliterate lives and leave a huge cost to the general welfare of society. I don't think that we should be throwing users in jail…

"a place where methamphetamine is legal and freely available is a scary place" Like the USA in the 1960's? Benzedrine was sold over the counter to children and widely used throughout the country. Now benzedrine is probably less dangerous than methamphetamine because it's slightly less hydrophobic, which often makes addiction less trouble. Meth showed up as the very similar black market substitute when benzedrine was…

>If we re-legalized dexedrine or benzedrine over the counter, the trouble would mostly go away.

We'd have:

Rehab for getting women off of diet pills.

Same thing for truckers, just for a different reason.

And we'd read about students abusing diet pills to study with.

Re: AT&T gives DEA 26 years of phone call records to wage war on drugs

#126

Post by anigbrowl » Tue, Sep 03, 2013, 10:09 PM UTC

jlgreco wrote: post #57

mpyne wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And now you know why David Simon was one of the few people speaking up about why PRISM wasn't really a big deal, as he has seen firsthand the effect of the War of Drugs on minorities through his work on The Wire . If the government should have the power to do these types of investigations (and the people keep voting people in who are 'Tough on Crime' so apparently they feel the government should have that power...),…

The jump from "The War on Drugs is worse than PRISM" to "PRISM really isn't a big deal" is rather large... "If the government should have the power to do these types of investigations..." See, they obviously shouldn't. Justifying PRISM because the DEA is doing something that they shouldn't is silly. Both deserve criticism, and we should not curtail criticism of PRISM just because the War on Drugs isn't getting nearly…

See, they obviously shouldn't.

But it's not obvious. Lots of people disagree with you and consistently vote for draconian approaches to law enforcement, immigration etc. I know a lot of people that simultaneously think Obama's a wicked tyrant and that Civil War 2.0 is inevitable, and who are also heartily in favor of the death penalty, mass deportations of illegal immigrants, militarizing the border with Mexico, and (insert hardline view here).

Re: AT&T gives DEA 26 years of phone call records to wage war on drugs

#127

Post by genwin » Tue, Sep 03, 2013, 10:09 PM UTC

jlgreco wrote: post #118

genwin wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is crack or meth legal in any modern country, after being illegal?

Portugual decriminalized drug use and saw decreases in drug-related crime , increased addiction program enrollment, decreased youth use of drugs, decreased drug-related deaths, and decreased HIV infection rates. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal

That's interesting, I'll definitely research further. It's possible these improvements were because they criminalized it in a sub-optimal way, as the US does. That is, it's possible that an optimal war on hard drugs could lead to even bigger net benefits. Imagine if no users needed fear prosecution; that's one aspect of the war I'd wage.

Re: AT&T gives DEA 26 years of phone call records to wage war on drugs

#128

Post by anigbrowl » Tue, Sep 03, 2013, 10:10 PM UTC

sharkweek wrote: post #42

jivatmanx wrote: post #19

This, the Parallel Construction story, and the Patriot act having been principally used for the War on Drugs than terror... has made me consider that the War on Drugs may actually be more dangerous to Liberty than the war on terror. No doubt it's basic premise, that putting a substance into one's own body is a "crime", is a pernicious lie. The War on Terror's pernicious lie is twofold: Terrorism isn't a crime, and th…

The Economist rants on this every couple of months, and I couldn't agree more. The war on drugs is a terrible misstep. Drugs should never have been a criminal issue, they should be strictly a public health issue. But we're far too entrenched to make that change now. Watch "The House I Live In" (streaming on Netflix) for a ridiculously detailed picture of the problem

The most impressive bit of THILI for me was the two cops that you saw ~15 years ago as young idealistic tough guys in a reality show, and now as jaded cynics who have mostly given up hope.

Re: AT&T gives DEA 26 years of phone call records to wage war on drugs

#129

Post by lutusp » Tue, Sep 03, 2013, 10:11 PM UTC

jlgreco wrote: post #124

genwin wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You would intensify the pursuit of criminal prosecution of people who find themselves addicted to prescription painkillers? No, rehab for them and all other people addicted to hard drugs. I'd seek criminal prosecution against the pushers who knew or should've known the drugs hurt much more than they help.

What, their doctors? Criminal prosecution for people who prescribe morphine?

Actually, that does happen, and IMHO for good reasons.

"When Is a Pain Doctor a Drug Pusher?" : http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/17/magazine/17pain-t.html?pag...

Re: AT&T gives DEA 26 years of phone call records to wage war on drugs

#130

Post by jlgreco » Tue, Sep 03, 2013, 10:13 PM UTC

mindslight wrote: post #117

jlgreco wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The jump from "The War on Drugs is worse than PRISM" to "PRISM really isn't a big deal" is rather large... "If the government should have the power to do these types of investigations..." See, they obviously shouldn't. Justifying PRISM because the DEA is doing something that they shouldn't is silly. Both deserve criticism, and we should not curtail criticism of PRISM just because the War on Drugs isn't getting nearly…

> people who get frustrated with recent attention to surveillance because "Of course this is going on, haven't you heard of Room 641A? I've been talking about this for years! > Grrr, I am upset that I am no longer unique for my suspicions." The first part is entirely true, but the second part is a misplaced caricature. If one wasn't operating with this threat model pre-Snowden, they mustn't have been analyzing the si…

The first part does not warrant frustration that the issue is being covered. The first part alone should render you glad that the issue is now being given the attention it deserves.

The people who complain that it is now receiving attention are doing it, I think, out of frustration that they are not being adequately recognized for being ahead of the curve. They feel vindicated but they think that nobody notices that, so they lash out and complain about the wrong thing.

I see a parallel between this and David Simon's stance. He is upset that people are concerned about PRISM not because he has a good reason to be unconcerned about PRISM but because he wants that outrage reserved for his pet issue. He lashes out at the wrong thing; it should not concern him that people are concerned about PRISM, rather it should concern him that they are not also concerned about the War on Drugs.

(I picked the "upset at not being vindicated" example because it is a position I find myself tempted to take. I feel qualified to talk about the mentality behind it because I understand and resist the urge to adopt that mentality myself.)