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

Your Friendly Neighborhood Drug Dealer

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 165 posts

Re: Your Friendly Neighborhood Drug Dealer

#91

Post by morgante »

ryanobjc wrote: post #62
stakecounter wrote: post #17

> In many circles, drugs are nearly as easy to find as liquor. I can't figure out if this is a mistake, deception (liquor is not a drug, it just contains one), or implying that "drugs" means "illegal drugs".

I think the reason why you are getting downvoted is because, especially from the context, its very common to know that 'drugs' means 'drugs taken for fun' (not all of them are illegal either). See, this is why I'm not sure I like computer people anymore - overly pedantic, not advancing the conversation. I call that 'smart-stupid' -- so smart, yet dumb at the same time.

> See, this is why I'm not sure I like computer people anymore - overly pedantic, not advancing the conversation. I call that 'smart-stupid' -- so smart, yet dumb at the same time.

I'm pretty sure most computer people don't like "smart-stupidity" either (hence the downvotes). If anything, I think engineers are more annoyed by bullshit/irrelevant pedantry than others.

Re: Your Friendly Neighborhood Drug Dealer

#92

Post by EGreg »

chc wrote: post #50
EGreg wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aren't they already entrepreneurs? Who says they have to have a job? LOL

The idea that anybody you'd label an "entrepreneur" can pull money out of thin air legally, without any capital, without any connections and without working for anyone else is rather peculiar.

straw man much?

I said that they are entrepreneurial, perhaps you would prefer that I said they're self employed?

The point is, they have skills and mindset that make them not just want a job anyway

Re: Your Friendly Neighborhood Drug Dealer

#93

Post by vertex-four »

elohesra wrote: post #56
chimeracoder wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And even in the areas where people are creating safer alternatives (e-cigarettes), there are politicians nearby ready to use their banhammers. I don't think this ("banhammers") is a fair comparison. To my knowledge, most if not all of the major regulation regarding e-cigarettes is around restricting the sale to minors or restricting the areas in which they can be used, as opposed to a blanket ban on the sale or pos…

> All of that is analogous to existing regulation regarding cigarettes But this is why e-cigarette campaigners say that politicians are just meddling out of personal distaste, rather than any scientific backing. The two core reasons why cigarettes cannot be smoked indoors are: 1) Doing so (potentially) causes deleterious effects to people who inhale the second-hand smoke. At the very least, it can be agreed that it's…

While many may emit water vapour, I believe there's studies which show that there are non-negligible amounts of other substances in some e-cigarette vapours. I do not think there's enough scientific data to make a long-term decision; perhaps just regulating the manufacturers so that we know what's putting what into the air is enough?

My personal opinion is that no matter the safety, I cannot cope with the smell of e-cigarettes, having been around people who use them indoors, and would like to have at least some recourse for being forced to smell it all day in my workplace. If vapers manage to convince companies that it is their "right" to vape in the workplace, I will not be able to work. I would thus like some regulation around using e-cigarettes in places where I have little choice to be.

Re: Your Friendly Neighborhood Drug Dealer

#94

Post by librethrowaway »

corin_ wrote: post #84
librethrowaway wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree somewhat, dealing marijuana is still quite profitable, even in west coast USA where ubiquitous medical/legal marijuana has driven down prices a lot. As for east coast? From what I hear, the markup is still huge, with retail prices roughly double of west coast. The only people I know of making a living exclusively selling marijuana (on the west coast) are small-time growers, though. You're definitely right…

It may be that it's different in the UK (where I am), apart from anything weed generally travels much shorter distances here. I heard from friends in one region here that after the police busted a local farm with a few million £ of weed grown there, there were a couple of months where every dealer had incredibly limited supplies, mostly coming in from Holland rather than elsewhere in the UK. There definitely isn't as…

I agree they're definitely the exception to the rule, most of that 'last mile' of going from ounces to a gram or two seems to be made up of people doing it on the side for a bit of extra money.

It does sound like the supply chain there is quite a bit different.

Re: Your Friendly Neighborhood Drug Dealer

#95

Post by stakecounter »

ryanobjc wrote: post #62
stakecounter wrote: post #17

> In many circles, drugs are nearly as easy to find as liquor. I can't figure out if this is a mistake, deception (liquor is not a drug, it just contains one), or implying that "drugs" means "illegal drugs".

I think the reason why you are getting downvoted is because, especially from the context, its very common to know that 'drugs' means 'drugs taken for fun' (not all of them are illegal either). See, this is why I'm not sure I like computer people anymore - overly pedantic, not advancing the conversation. I call that 'smart-stupid' -- so smart, yet dumb at the same time.

I wasn't trying to be pedantic. I probably should've been more direct but what I mean is that it's a disservice to the article to distinguish alcohol from all other recreational drugs like that. The way it's worded makes it sound like alcohol is not a drug at all, which opens up people's minds into treating the two differently even though one literally IS the other.

Re: Your Friendly Neighborhood Drug Dealer

#96

Post by jrockway »

collyw wrote: post #73
Symmetry wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the same conviction that means regular employers not trust the person mean that potential partners in crime know he's actually a criminal and therefore more trustworthy for their purposes.

"Criminal" as in the label. Was there not a statistic recently that the average American commits 3 felonies every day? Being a criminal just means you got caught.

That's a quip, not a statistic.

Re: Your Friendly Neighborhood Drug Dealer

#97

Post by Crito »

vertex-four wrote: post #93
elohesra wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> All of that is analogous to existing regulation regarding cigarettes But this is why e-cigarette campaigners say that politicians are just meddling out of personal distaste, rather than any scientific backing. The two core reasons why cigarettes cannot be smoked indoors are: 1) Doing so (potentially) causes deleterious effects to people who inhale the second-hand smoke. At the very least, it can be agreed that it's…

While many may emit water vapour, I believe there's studies which show that there are non-negligible amounts of other substances in some e-cigarette vapours. I do not think there's enough scientific data to make a long-term decision; perhaps just regulating the manufacturers so that we know what's putting what into the air is enough? My personal opinion is that no matter the safety, I cannot cope with the smell of e-…

I don't think that either smell nor "non-water compounds" are reasons to regulate e-cigarettes tighter than we regulate perfumes, colognes, or spray deodorants.

Similar regulation for all four seems reasonable to me.

Re: Your Friendly Neighborhood Drug Dealer

#100

Post by elohesra »

vertex-four wrote: post #93
elohesra wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> All of that is analogous to existing regulation regarding cigarettes But this is why e-cigarette campaigners say that politicians are just meddling out of personal distaste, rather than any scientific backing. The two core reasons why cigarettes cannot be smoked indoors are: 1) Doing so (potentially) causes deleterious effects to people who inhale the second-hand smoke. At the very least, it can be agreed that it's…

While many may emit water vapour, I believe there's studies which show that there are non-negligible amounts of other substances in some e-cigarette vapours. I do not think there's enough scientific data to make a long-term decision; perhaps just regulating the manufacturers so that we know what's putting what into the air is enough? My personal opinion is that no matter the safety, I cannot cope with the smell of e-…

> I cannot cope with the smell of e-cigarettes

Okay, fair enough. Have you tried asking the vapers if they would mind not smoking them indoors? I know I've stopped doing so in confined conference rooms after a coworker commented that they didn't like the smell.

I appreciate it sucks that vaping is just one more thing which intrudes on your personal space and freedoms, but so do so many things at the office, from people chatting, to coughing, to cracking their knuckles or delighting you with the irritating buzz of their headphones. I'm not really sure that e-cigarettes warrant regulation any more than any of the other annoyances that are encountered throughout the day.

EDIT: Also, for anyone interested in learning more about the science of e-cigarette safety, Dr. Siegel of the Boston University School of Public Health pretty vociferously supports e-cigarettes and writes a blog on the science and politics of the matter:

http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.co.uk/2009/07/comparison.htm...

Yes, I realize that's a shameless appeal to authority.

Post reply on HN