[tylersmith]

> I can't have sympathy for someone who was selling opioids to addicts, exacerbating a terrible epidemic.

That's a philosophical question about how much people own their own lives versus how much you should be able to dictate their lives for your own selfish sense of peace of mind. We're not going to change anyone's minds on that in HN comments.

> The feds didn't do that, his own actions did that.

The "feds" did do that, in response to his actions, because people like you manadte via votes that they do that.

[s73v3r_]

No. He did it to himself, through his actions.

[TomMarius]

He's not there voluntarily, is he?

[s73v3r_]

He is responsible for his own actions. No one forced him to become a drug kingpin.

[jMyles]

That's just not the point. Not the point at all.

Forget this guy for a second.

The real question here is: will this act (or generally, all of the actions taken by the state pursuant to enforcing prohibition) help anyone? Will it reduce death, disease, crime, misery, addiction?

[s73v3r_]

That is entirely the point. This guy made a conscious decision to feel in drugs he knew we illegal and harmful. I have zero sympathy for him. He knew exactly what he was doing, and what the consequences were. He did this to himself

[jMyles]

As often is the case when debating with you, it's hard to understand the actual difference of viewpoint.

It seems like you just value revenge and compliance over a functioning civil society.

If you can't point to a tangible reduction in death, disease, misery, or addiction from these sorts of state actions, then I just don't see that you have a point to make at all.

[emteycz]

So, if we go a bit to the extreme, the survivors of Nazi camps also did it to themselves, since everything was done according to German laws?