Comment by antihero

Comment by antihero 3 days ago

55 replies

It's amazing. Absolutely insane that people are incarcerated so long for non-violent drug crimes, though.

Turso also looks really neat for small Payload sites.

badc0ffee 3 days ago

"Non-violent drug crimes" brings to mind hippies selling weed or mushrooms. But this guy was selling carfentanil. I'm not saying he's to blame for the opioid crisis turning street people into shambling zombies, clogging emergency services with overdoses, and causing death, but he certainly played a part.

  • cortesoft 3 days ago

    He played a lot smaller part than the Sackler family, who ran Purdue Pharma and pushed their drugs into communities. They killed a lot more people than this guy, and yet none of them are in jail.

    • tux3 3 days ago

      The Sacklers are comfortably above the law and that's a bad thing, but that doesn't make small time carfentanyl operations any less bad

      Evil is a threshold, it's not a competition with limited spots

      Sometimes big crime families or notorious serial killers get away with it, but it doesn't lower the threshold for anyone else

      It doesn't make it any better that someone else is doing even worse. You don't get to do a little crime, as a treat

      • dfxm12 3 days ago

        Focus on the bad thing, not piling on the guy who is serving his sentence (while also making a new life for himself).

      • ipaddr 3 days ago

        Evil is a religious concept.

        Selling drugs isn't evil. Not selling drug doesn't make you good. People take drugs for various reasons. If a doctor sells them they are good but if someone else sells them they are evil?

        The person buying could have been fired and can't afford Doctors prescription so the person selling could be an angel.

      • cortesoft 3 days ago

        > Evil is a threshold, it's not a competition with limited spots

        No, but our enforcement has limited resources. We can't arrest and jail every offender of every crime, so we pick and choose where to spend our enforcement resources. All the money spent pursuing, arresting, trying, and imprisoning this guy could have been spent going after people like the Sacklers.

      • cess11 3 days ago

        "You don't get to do a little crime, as a treat"

        Why not? I much prefer a society in which I can get away with some crimes to one where every crime is prosecuted.

    • BeetleB 3 days ago

      Bush and his cronies resulted in the death of far more innocent people than your typical murderer. But we don't stop sending murderers to prison just because Bush/Cheney are not in prison.

      I've voted for drug legalization (including possession). However, that doesn't mean that I condone all drug dealing behavior.

    • tptacek 3 days ago

      It took something like a decade to put Capone away. We still locked up murderers during that period.

      The whole thread is silly. I don't think a lot of people here are going to stick up for a 15 year stretch for a 24 year old for selling opiates. Probably don't need to pull the Sacklers into it.

      • cortesoft 3 days ago

        I don't think it is silly to be reminded of the inequalities of our penal system.

    • nkrisc 3 days ago

      Yes, they should be in jail for longer than he is.

    • e40 3 days ago

      Whataboutism. Selling the drug he was peddling kills people. Lots of people. This is not a “no victims” crime.

      EDIT: another commentor found that it was MDMA and weed, so this discussion is purely theoretical and doesn’t apply to OP.

      • Reasoning 3 days ago

        MDMA and weed was his initial sentence. He's in prison now for selling synthetic opioids.

  • swdev281634 3 days ago

    > But this guy was selling carfentanil

    Do you have a source? It seems that guy was selling MDMA and marijuana. Here's the relevant quote from https://pthorpe92.dev/intro/my-story/

    I was caught with MDMA coming in the mail from Vancouver, and some marijuana coming from california (the latter of which is what I am currently serving my time for right now)

  • refulgentis 3 days ago

    I find it somewhat amusing that I woke up to this post at ~9 AM, and was surprised at the crowding-out of discussion about the article, by people sort of half-groping at a straw or two they picked up, trying to make a definitive case on his...goodness? morality?...based off the straw they're holding.

    It is now 4 PM, about to clock out for the day because I gotta wait for CI run thats >30m. I come back here and it's still going on. This is #3 comment I see when I open HN, ensuing thread takes up two pages scrolls on 16" MBP.

    It's bad of me to write this because, well, who cares? Additionally, am I trying to litigate what other people comment?

    The root feeling driving me to express myself is a form of frustrated boredom -- rolling with that and verbalizing concretely, a bunch of people writing comments with the one thing they're hyperfocusing on their record to drive a conclusion on their value as a person/morality, and then people pointing out that's not some moral absolute, asking for links, discussing the links...

    ...well, it's all just clutter.

    Or YouTube comment-level discussion, unless we're planning on relitigating every case he's been involved in.

    This all would be better if it the kangaroo court stuff was confined to a thread with all of the evidence against him, so we didn't have a bunch of weak cases, or if people didn't treat this as an opportunity to be a drive by judge. Article def. ain't about his crimes, and he ain't saying he's innocent or an angel.

    (and the idea that "drug crimes" implies "hippie selling weed or psychedelics" so calling them "drug crimes" is hiding the ball...where does that come from? Its especially dissonant b/c you indicate the mere fact he sold an opiod is so bad that this guy is...bad? irredeemable? not worth discussing?...so presumably you care a lot about opiods, so presumably you know that's whats driven drug crime the last, uh, decade or two?)

    • badc0ffee 3 days ago

      > trying to make a definitive case on his...goodness? morality?

      Speaking for myself, I'm actually just discussing the idea that a non-violent crime like drug dealing necessarily deserves a light sentence in general.

      > Sounds like a you thing

      It is a me thing. That's why I said "brings to mind".

      I'm a product of my time. I remember when weed and psychedelics meant demonization and heavy sentences, and it was absurd because those substances aren't that dangerous.

      This is the context in which I'm accustomed to calling drug dealing a "non-violent crime". So, I feel like I need to point out that things are not quite the same with deadly drugs like carfentanil.

      • lazyasciiart 3 days ago

        They are largely the same though. Small-time dealing of any drug is often just being the guy in your circle of users that does the group buying, maybe it was just your turn. Or your dealer says you can pay for your purchase by driving this package across town. Now you've been caught with enough pills to kill 30 people and the intent to distribute - is that an action that hits your threshold for heavy sentences and bad people?

CobrastanJorji 3 days ago

Oh absolutely. Voters always favor harsher punishments or making things worse for those already convicted of crimes. You never get any more votes by pushing for lower punishments for any crime or by doing anything to reduce recidivism. I suspect that a pretty solid litmus test for "politician who is actually trying to make the world a better place" based just on how they vote for lowering recidivism.

  • rustcleaner 3 days ago

    Justification to abolish democracy, and because everything else is worse I guess we're going to have to go to a voluntarist ancap NAP-respecting society!

  • [removed] 3 days ago
    [deleted]
tptacek 3 days ago

I agree with you. This is a crazy high sentence (15-30). But worth nothing that the fact pattern behind it was also pretty crazy.

ponector 3 days ago

[flagged]

  • cycomanic 3 days ago

    And you take personal responsibility if someone innocent is convicted? Once you have executed someone there is no coming back. Or are you saying you're OK with some innocents being killed so you can save some money (taxes)?

    • charcircuit 3 days ago

      >Once you have executed someone there is no coming back.

      Once you've taken 10 years of someone's life there is no giving that back either. As technology progresses the cost of recording evidence will go down which will help convict and prove the innocence of people.

      • aspenmayer 3 days ago

        > As technology progresses the cost of recording evidence will go down which will help convict and prove the innocence of people.

        Minority Report is a counterfactual to this claim. The future is already here, it’s just unevenly distributed. Technology is a tool to extend one’s grasp to meet one’s reach, and vice versa, and is a tool that serves power. Those with power are best able to bend tools to their ends, just or unjust.

        > It is the duty of the poor to support and sustain the rich in their power and idleness. In doing so, they have to work before the laws' majestic equality, which forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread.

        https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Anatole_France

    • ponector 3 days ago

      It takes 5-25 years is the USA to execute a person. Someone can argue what is worse: to live 20 more years in prison or to be executed.

  • BriggyDwiggs42 3 days ago

    Sure, some people might say that. I’d say that’s also quite cruel, and that there might be a third option that’s better than both.

ahahs 3 days ago

Say that to the people he killed selling those drugs. This isn't weed, it's highly lethal pills.

  • OvidNaso 3 days ago

    If he killed anyone he should be charged with murder or manslaughter.

    • nickff 3 days ago

      Many dealers and addicts who are involved in extremely violent crimes are plead down to drug crimes after having been charged with both drug and violent crimes.

      https://www.courts.nh.gov/sites/g/files/ehbemt471/files/docu...

      >"On December 24, 2016, three Manchester police officers responded to an apartment following a report of a domestic dispute. The report was made by the mother of Ashley Arbogast, who advised that her daughter had called her Stating that her boyfriend had broken her arm during an argument."

      • BobaFloutist 3 days ago

        Ok, but we should punish people for the crimes they're convicted of, not the crimes we've decided for ourselves they committed.

        • nickff 3 days ago

          He is being punished for what he was convicted of; whether you agree with the penalty or not. If we do change the penalties, the convictions will change too.

          I just wanted to point out that there is clear evidence that this individual was involved in at least one violent act, as is often the case with ‘non-violent drug convicts’.

  • ipaddr 3 days ago

    Any yet there are coke-cola machines everywhere including inside police stations which kills more people each year.

    And only one company is allowed to import the specific leaves/material (coca leafs). The government restricts everyone from importing them unless it's one of the biggest companies in the world.

    • genewitch 3 days ago

      McDonalds had a location inside the hospital in my metro area. For at least decades, they finally left that location during covid, sometime.

      i can't even, and it sounds made up.

    • AuryGlenz 3 days ago

      A person can have an occasional Coke and it's perfectly fine. Fentanyl, not so much.

  • rustcleaner 3 days ago

    He didn't kill anyone, unless he misrepresented the product and the customer used the product incorrectly and died as a result. Even then there's argument for tainted product and considering the persecution around the industry, I as a juror would acquit any charge reliant on that as the underlying logic. Even then, if I foresaw more than 12 years sentence for anyone I would acquit and jury nullify on human rights grounds. Humans must be free. The big moral failure of modern states is their lack of unmolested opt-out.

    People like big strong dominating government until it gets replaced with the Mormon church, or a Caliphate, then nooo it's not statesmanship but just religion. (Hint: all states are religions, and codes are religious texts. What do freedom of religion and freedom of association mean in this context, instead of the toothless safe-for-government one you're used to thinking of it in?)