[mewkou]

I'm sorry to hear that about your friend. Its never good to hear about how someone threw their life away for temporary rewards.

You say they weren't violent, but violence is not the only reason we incarcerate individuals. He broke the law, he knew it, he got caught, and now he's living with those consequences. I hope he learns a lot from this and decides to no longer break the law in the future. I hope others can read your story and decide that breaking the law is not worth it.

People are very cavalier with "non violent drug charges" as if dealing drugs is value neutral. It is not. There is societal harm to dealing drugs and I'm grateful for laws that forbid it and punish individuals that do it.

[alisonkisk]

The same argument applies to Turing being imprisoned for his homosexuality. There's nothing wrong with marijuana that deserves making it illegal, especially more illegal than murder, which was the point of this story!

[TheSpiceIsLife]

That was going to be another point I wanted to raise.

Homosexuality was illegal not so long ago, but it also harms no one and is approximately the business of only those directly involved.

And yet we used to persecute people for... what? Something we'd been conditioned to reflexively disagree with.

Shameful.

[TheSpiceIsLife]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_cannabis_by_U.S._j...

Marijuana is legal or decriminalised in most of the developed world, including the USA. It's widely accepted to be relatively harmless, much less harmful than alcohol.

This guy? He was an entrepreneur, just another person running a small business with a couple of employees. He didn't deserver a long jail sentence for someone else's fuck up.

Just because it's illegal doesn't mean it's wrong / just because it's legal doesn't mean it's rigth.

[mewkou]

What do we call entrepreneurs that break the law?

Criminals.

[bmarkovic]

What a way to avoid dealing with actual arguments.

Btw we don't.

Most law breaking in entrepreneurship is usually finable misdemeanours. Like 99.99% of it. We don't call those people criminals.

[FpUser]

We who? Depends what law. If you broke the law that prevents harming other people then sure. If however the law is totally unjust (and some of them really are) they might be criminals only from the point of view of the crooks that make our governments and write laws. Me - I would call them victims of fucked up system where some self-righteous POS dictates how people should live their lives.

And yes. Money talk. The less money one has the less chances to get justice.

[_carbyau_]

Exceptions for those that have a LOT of money...

[muttled]

Didn't Uber start off by breaking laws just about everywhere it operated by being an unlicensed taxi service?

[sunshineforever]

In my opinion its basically a miracle that Uber was ever allowed to operate.

The government seemed to just decide to enforce the law differently because computers were involved.

[geoduck14]

I'm not sure why people are down voting you. They disagree with the law? The law exists. He broke it. If you don't like it, work to change the law. I got a speeding ticket - can I get a bunch of up votes because no one likes to get a speeding ticket?

As an aside, Americans like to think they live in a bubble. Like their actions are independent from everyone else's and my bad decisions don't impact other people. This simply isn't true in a society where we all interact. There are laws preventing banks from loaning money at high interest rates - because it is bad for society. There are HOAs that maintain neighborhoods - because it is good for the neighborhood. We mandate health insurance (sort of). Amd we have laws regulating drugs.

We can disagree with how the laws are enforced - but we should not pretend that other people's actions have no impact on us.

[Sebguer]

How many people at Wells Fargo went to jail for their massive fraudulent creation of accounts?

People are allowed to be upset with how the law is unevenly applied.

[FpUser]

>"There are HOAs that maintain neighborhoods - because it is good for the neighborhood"

Oh I hate those with all my guts. And no, they're not good for the neighborhood. They're good for destroying whatever little self respect and dignity people have left. I wish those control HOA freaks will go to /dev/null .

[late2part]

Upvote given, cheekily! I hate speeding tickets!

[adrusi]

I am very much your ideological opponent on this issue, but I agree that there is a solid ethical case for obeying the law regardless of its content, because the rule of law is a phenomenal human achievement that enables us to live vastly more peaceful existences than would be possible if it were absent. My own lifestyle, which doesn't involve much concern at all for self-defense or alliance building wouldn't be possible in conditions with significantly weaker rule of law, and the rule of law is not a given — it can be threatened; we could lose it.

But there's another consideration that's in tension with that one. No one ever ascented to the laws that they're governed by. Yes, there are endless backs and forth in the philosophical literature on this point, but I think the strongest case that governments can justly impose restrictions without explicit consent is going to have to say that there are some kinds of restrictions that governments can impose, but some that they can't. Otherwise you're committed to saying that governments can justly enforce regimes of slavery and so on. The question is how much less evil than slavery do you have to get before governments can justly impose restrictions on their subjects.

You say that selling drugs is not value neutral. I agree. It's value-positive. Drug dealers are heroes: they put their lives and freedoms on the line to let others enjoy the cognitive liberty that their governments would deprive them of. The idea of cognitive liberty is that it is a human right to have the freedom to shape your conscious experience as you see fit. It's not presently recognized as a human right by any nation, but neither was freedom of thought some centuries ago, yet we don't recognize historical rulers as particularly respectful of human rights. The legal scholar Richard Glen Boire has spent his career elaborating and promoting this principle.

You're, I take it, concerned that drugs cause harm to the people who use them and the people near those who use them. Drugs definitely do have the potential to cause harm (although cannabis, the drug in question, is especially weak in its potential to cause harm). But the idea that people have about the harm of drugs is distorted in three main ways:

1. Prohibition makes drugs far more expensive than they would be without distortionary market policy. Much of the harm of drugs comes from people being driven into poverty by addiction. This is almost entirely a consequence of prohibition, and would be a much lesser problem under a regime that respected cognitive liberty.

2. There's selection bias in the stories that we hear about users of drugs. Due to the stigma and legal risks around drug use, people who are able to keep their drug use private choose to keep it private, and we get an exaggerated sample of people who end up in need of an intervention or on the streets as a result of their drug use. See the recent book Drug Use For Grown-Ups by Dr. Carl Hart for more on this.

3. The lack of drug education, and the belief — widespread even among users of drugs — that drug use is inherently self destructive, leads people to be far more reckless in their drug use than is necessary. Certainly there will always be people who are reckless with drugs, but we can do a lot better than having young people learn about drugs from their peers in contexts where it's uncool to be concerned with safety, and half the point of the activity is to signal disregard for authority and rules.

I'm not sure that respecting people's cognitive liberty wouldn't result in more people suffering at the hands of their own drug use, but I suspect that it would be fewer than most people imagine. And cognitive liberty is something that's valuable in itself.