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

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

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 211 posts

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

#141

Post by anigbrowl »

genwin wrote: post #43
danielsju6 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like you need to read-up on the prohibition and what making alcohol illegal did to our country.

It's a question of what does more harm than good. The vast majority of people who drink alcohol can still be sober at work. Whereas a crack addict will tend to be high all day, unable to work, thus needing to rob to feed their addiction.

That's nonsense. GCracks'a horrible drug, crack addicts are tedious & depressing to be around, but they're not all as dysfunctional as you suggest. The most common crime I've seen among extreme crack addicts is prostitution rather than robbery.

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

#142

Post by genwin »

baddox wrote: post #100
genwin wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a matter of percentages. Perhaps 5% of alcohol users have a significant problem with it, that drags down those around them. I don't know what the percentage is for crack but I bet it's over 90%, high enough that we shouldn't take a chance on the users who aren't addicted to it promoting it to the 90% who would become addicted it.

> I don't know what the percentage is for crack but I bet it's over 90% According to this spurious page [0], "up to 75% of those who try cocaine will become addicted." Of course, the page also says "an estimated one-in-four Americans between the age of 26 and 34 have used cocaine at least once in their lifetime, according to the Office of National Drug Control Policy." Since it looks like around 15% of Americans are…

Is that crack cocaine, or regular cocaine? I think the former is much more addictive.

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

#143

Post by prawn »

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…

Is the War on Drugs just modernised slavery? Privatised prison system with the profit-based incentives to take on more and more prisoners.

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

#144

Post by anigbrowl »

genwin wrote: post #82
baddox wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're also conflating all levels of alcohol usage with crack addiction . It's possible for many people (though granted, probably nearly genetically impossible for some people) to use either without becoming addicted. And for alcoholics, it's often very hard to hold down a job.

It's a matter of percentages. Perhaps 5% of alcohol users have a significant problem with it, that drags down those around them. I don't know what the percentage is for crack but I bet it's over 90%, high enough that we shouldn't take a chance on the users who aren't addicted to it promoting it to the 90% who would become addicted it.

I don't know what the percentage is for crack

Then stop talking out of your ass and do some research before machine-gunning the thread.

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

#145

Post by genwin »

rhizome wrote: post #93
genwin wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a matter of percentages. Perhaps 5% of alcohol users have a significant problem with it, that drags down those around them. I don't know what the percentage is for crack but I bet it's over 90%, high enough that we shouldn't take a chance on the users who aren't addicted to it promoting it to the 90% who would become addicted it.

I don't know what the percentage is for crack but I bet... Hello, old friend.

Well I don't the percentage for a lot of things I bet I'm right about the minimum percentage for!

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

#146

Post by pstuart »

genwin wrote: post #39
pstuart wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, no, no. Making them illegal makes more violent crime. Let me put you in rehab for your coffee addiction or beer habit, ok?

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.

80,000 deaths per year in the US attributed to alcohol: http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/alcohol-use.htm

It's a dangerous drug. It makes people violent. People drink and drive and kill people. Let's make it illegal too, eh?

Drug addiction is a health issue and should be treated as that. Making drugs illegal CREATES MORE CRIME.

We could stop this madness if only people would STOP SUPPORTING THE MADNESS.

Sorry to shout, but I'm sure you're an otherwise intelligent individual, but you are failing in this subject.

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

#147

Post by aroman »

mpyne wrote: post #110
aroman wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure why my answer merited either a down vote or a sarcastic response, but I regardless, you can work to minimize terrorism without destroying our rights and liberties. I'm not sure where you're drawing the false dichotomy from.

I didn't downvote. I also didn't think I was being sarcastic, to you at least. I don't personally live under the false dichotomy that an unending "WAR ON TERROR" is required to suppress terrorism. But nor do I fall into the trope that the solution is to simply let anyone inflict any attack that they wish. As you say, it is possible to actually fight terrorism without destroying our rights and liberties, and I agree w…

I didn't mean to imply it was you who down voted me. It seems we're really on the same page here. I wasn't aware of all the strings and stigma attached to the "war on $foo" phrase.

My point was simply to object to the idea that doing nothing and simply pretending the outside world doesn't exist or that there aren't people who wish us harm out there is a Bad Idea™.

I do of course agree that open ended campaigns which cripple our rights without clear and predictable expectations is very bad, if not as bad.

To rephrase, then: I want to address and fight terrorism, but I don't want a blind or self-harming "war" on terror.

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

#148

Post by genwin »

__alexs wrote: post #58
genwin wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a question of what does more harm than good. The vast majority of people who drink alcohol can still be sober at work. Whereas a crack addict will tend to be high all day, unable to work, thus needing to rob to feed their addiction.

Crack is unusually addictive but many people maintain casual cocaine habits for years on end. Both of these drugs have the same classification, and the same penalties in most of the world. Crack is also particularly bad for your health outside of just being extremely addictive. If it wasn't a Class A drug people would rapidly end up in treatment for it anyway. Ultimately there's hardly any actual science involved in…

There should be evidence heavily involved in a war on drugs, on a drug by drug basis, for sure. I'd estimate the totality of the drag on society, even parenting, in determining the resources to apply to reduce the usage of that drug.

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

#149

Post by jlgreco »

dllthomas wrote: post #134
jlgreco wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know, that is why I used marijuana as my example. @whyleyc is asserting that drug "hardness", not drug prohibition, is the cause of the societal harm associated with drugs. I am pointing out that we see similar harm with marijuana, which everyone here accepts as not "hard", but which is prohibited. It therefore stands to reason that if prohibition can cause harm to society with a "non-hard" drug like marijuana, it…

But this doesn't demonstrate that it doesn't prevent greater harm with a "hard" drug, which was the point at issue as I read things.

Well, if I wanted to argue that point I would just point out that I am pretty sure drunk fathers kept on beating their children during the 1920s.

I mean, that is the sort of shit that spawned the temperance movement, but when prohibition came into effect, did the temperance movement actually see the sort of social change that they anticipated? I doubt that the 1920s were some sort of utopia for battered children and spouses...

Post reply on HN