LSD chemist William Pickard to be released from prison

Post by BurningFrog » Sat, Jul 25, 2020, 6:16 PM UTC

perl4ever wrote: post #194

site-packages1 wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is an unacceptable risk for people who didn’t consent, but that’s a different matter. We should punish people who give others dangerous things without consent.

Well, you can get into trouble if you start playing around with radioactive material, too. I think "The Radioactive Boy Scout" has been mentioned on HN a few times. I think a reason why dangerous things are regulated is because even though they don't always lead to harm, the harm can be grave and impossible to undo. Even if an unexpected trip doesn't technically lead to permanent brain damage, if the behavior were mi…

Post by ohmybash » Sat, Jul 25, 2020, 6:18 PM UTC

HenryKissinger wrote: post #151

worldsayshi wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 20 years for each one That is incredible. For a crime that harms noone.

I mean, the organized crime groups that sell these drugs do harm people, by way of murders, human trafficking, violent crimes and property crimes. Funding criminals and terrorists is surely worthy of punishment, do you not agree? But I agree that twenty years is excessive. A week of prison or two would be enough.

Post by kingkawn » Sat, Jul 25, 2020, 6:23 PM UTC

grayhatter wrote: post #256

quickthrowman wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely. Violence related to drug dealing is a result on the insane profit margins on heroin, cocaine, and meth. It’s possible to make 70-90% net profit on cocaine if you can get it at wholesale, which is nuts. Of course people will kill each other for the chance to make 90 cents on the dollar. If you bought some Chinese fentanyl and made “heroin” I bet it’s closer to 95-99% net, imagine having a money machine tha…

> Of course people will kill each other for the chance to make 90 cents on the dollar. I was going to argue with you. Something something... not everyone is that bad. But then I considered all the harm large corporations do... Shit man wtf is wrong with humans?

Post by cik2e » Sat, Jul 25, 2020, 6:38 PM UTC

grayhatter wrote: post #246

theptip wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. If you take [action], and it was a necessary and sufficient condition for [consequence], then you are morally responsible for that consequence. (Sure, the individuals committing crimes in this concrete case are also morally respoinsible). In this case, I think it is correct to say that the laws cause violence, since that violence would not be happening otherwise. There is a common trope that criminals sit…

> I disagree. If you take [action], and it was a necessary and sufficient condition for [consequence], That's exactly the thing though isn't it. Marijuana is (was) illegal, and has VERY LITTLE amount of violent crime related with its market. Making something illegal isn't enough to induce violence alone. So the [action] of (making drugs illegal) itself alone isn't enough to make [consequence] of (additional violence)…

Post by cik2e » Sat, Jul 25, 2020, 6:39 PM UTC

quickthrowman wrote: post #184

grayhatter wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, you have your logic backwards. The conclusion that with lax drug laws, there'd be less violence associated with drug manufacturing and selling is correct. But the laws don't cause the violence, they make it so violent individuals are the only one's willing to fill the supply. If I outlaw [drug], I'm not responsible because you kill someone trying to sell [drug].

> But the laws don't cause the violence, they make it so violent individuals are the only one's willing to fill the supply. This is untrue. The vast majority of the US drug trade is done without violence. There’s violence in the powder/pill drug game because the profit margins are so high, creating an immense amount of competition. Sometimes you can 5-10x your money off powder, that isn’t really possible with marijua…