[homulilly]

Cars and guns also hurt people but pretty much anyone can sell those.

I agree that drug sales should be regulated but that doesn't in any way make sentencing someone to life in prison for running a website any less fucked up.

[timsally]

> Cars and guns also hurt people but pretty much anyone can sell those.

The following applies only to the US. Since 1968 you need a license granted by the federal government to sell guns (https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/who-can-obtain-federal-firea...). The law allowing you to carry a firearm was passed in 1791. Driver's licenses have been around since 1899. You can't sell a car to someone without one.

When thinking about this issue, I've found the following thought experiments useful:

(1) Should someone who ran a multi-million dollar illegal gun operation get life in prison, even though unlike drugs, the right to own firearms is explicitly protected by the Constitution?

(2) Should someone who ran a multi-million dollar website selling only weed in legal venues (Colorado, etc) be convicted of any crime, never-mind sentenced to life in prison, even though it is against federal law?

Personally I answer (1) as YES and (2) as NO, and place Ulbricht's conduct significantly closer to (1) than to (2).

[rascul]

> Driver's licenses have been around since 1899. You can't sell a car to someone without one.

You most certainly can. And it's completely legal. Driver's licenses have nothing to do with buying and selling vehicles. Some (all?) dealers might not do it, but there's other reasons besides legality for them to worry about.

[timsally]

Interesting, I stand corrected. That said, to legally carry out the act with a car that might actually hurt someone else (driving it), you need to be both licensed by the government and compliant with a suite of regulation (insurance, etc). So I think the point still stands.

[baddox]

I would answer No to both.

[jsmthrowaway]

That dichotomy is clever, almost convincing, and plainly obvious in its manipulative structure.

[timsally]

How about we both draw out our positions more explicitly? I present two scenarios where someone is selling a harmful product to people-- one in which someone is selling a product that US citizens have an unassailable right to in an illegal fashion and one in which someone is selling a product that people have a weaker claim to in a legal fashion. I support jail for the former and not the latter simply because my position is that the peoples' right to have product is irrelevant, it's whether you are selling it legally or not. If you're selling someone harmful in an illegal manner and you do multi-million dollars of business per year you should go to jail for a long time, even if the people have a right to said product.

[Zancarius]

I'd greatly appreciate if you could elaborate, because I'm finding myself confused as to what you're getting at, and I have no idea which point you're addressing. I think I follow, but I'm not convinced my interpretation is correct.

Honestly, I can't tell if this block is because I'm conflating the context of the greater discussion (the Ulbricht trial) with the more nuanced points of timsally's comment.

Thanks!

[tzs]

> Cars and guns also hurt people but pretty much anyone can sell those

When car or gun buying addiction becomes more then a negligible problem, you'll have a terrific point.

[jononor]

90+% of American households own cars. Approximately 30'000 die in car crashes every year. I'd say the US is addicted to cars.

[roel_v]

Under a nonsense 'definition' that nobody uses. Sure I can make any point if I get to redefine words any way I want.

[pbhjpbhj]

FWIW "addicted to cars" has results with headline in major news outlets - it's a common trope.

In human geography terms it simply means that giving up cars is a supremely difficult thing for society to do - particularly in some Western areas that are designed around the idea that all people have cars available [cheaply].

This has enough similarity to addiction that people use "addicted" commonly like this - "I'm addicted to coffee" or "I'm addicted to chocolate" usually just means you'd find it hard to give it up. [I don't know if clinically those statements are true for some though.]

As it happens I've given up alcohol, chocolate, coffee, videogames, and cars at various points and the car was definitely the hardest requiring the most change in my lifestyle.

[tptacek]

Coffee addiction and heroin addiction are, all rhetorical games aside, not actually comparable.

[wglb]

Would you say that you are addicted to shoes? I would find it harder to give up shoes as compared to cars.

Disagree with your definition of addicted

[pbhjpbhj]

I've gone barefoot a few times - it's a bit sore on gravelly ground but other than that not terrible. Supermarket chiller sections feel very cold.

>Disagree with your definition of addicted //

I made pains to show that "addicted" was being used metaphorically. I was describing common use not presenting an alternate definition. That said the roots of the word are in having an inclination towards something and it is still defined in some dictionaries as alternately relating towards habits rather than solely pertaining to psychological or physiological dependency.

[homulilly]

Well, gun violence is definitely a pretty big problem in the united states. More importantly, banning or restricting gun ownership is effective at reducing gun related injury and death. The same cannot be said for drug prohibition (see: American alcohol prohibition, Portugal's drug decriminalization).

[bsder]

So many people were convinced that "Obummer is gunner take r gunz" that they created a bullet shortage that lasted for years.

Um, sounds like like addiction to me.

[simoncion]

Heh.

It was military hardware that was using those bullets, my friend. :)

[bsder]

I somehow doubt the military was buying up all the .22 bullets ...

If I want to protect myself, I'm going to want a bullet with quite a bit more punch, thanks.