I think many times these arrests are meant to be a demonstration that law enforcement is doing their job. I imagine even the arresting agents realize this guy is a drop in the ocean and his customers will quickly flock to his replacement.

Similar to those folks who work in a corporate environment who complete a document that they know will be jettisoned into a corporate black hole but checks off a requirement.

Sure, but "doing their job" is a bullshit excuse for taking somebody's life away. Honestly it's worse IMO. They know it accomplishes nothing except making them look a tiny bit better to their bosses. Destroying a person's life for career advancement is quite different than making a worthless gdoc that nobody will read.

>excuse for taking somebody's life away.

There are a million other things he could have sold online that wouldn't have resulted in 20 years in jail. Whether you agree with the illegal status of drugs or not, if someone choose to subvert the law, you can't expect law enforcement not to prosecute.

> if someone choose to subvert the law, you can't expect law enforcement not to prosecute.

Sure, that's fine.

But it also obfuscates the more important point: I can expect (and I do expect) that a reasonable, mature society stop this idiotic practice in the first place.

Refusing to learn from the failures of drug prohibition throughout history is one thing, but continuing a current and clearly failed experiment for an entire century is flabbergasting and childish.

Who will be the last person who's life is ruined for no reason? Will it be this dude? Or someone in the same position tomorrow?

"Sure, but "doing their job" is a bullshit excuse for taking somebody's life away."

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

"Destroying a person's life"

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

> 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.

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

He's not there voluntarily, is he?

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

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?

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

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.

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?

That almost 0 effect is what practical every form of enforcement against smuggling is going to be. A person not declaring items being brought into the country is very unlikely to have a effect on the federal budget, or any effect of on a legal market, and yet practical all border controls has someone employed to check for undeclared items.

Yeah it's a ridiculous waste of money to infringe on others' rights.

I'm fairly certain the OP was being sarcastic.

Yes, and is being downvoted for it. My reply was agreeing with him but without the sarcastic shtick.

People downvote for the stupidest reasons anymore. It will be the death of good, well thought out but not conformist commentary and become a boring monoculture, just like everywhere else. I'm getting in the habit of looking for stupid downvotes and upvote. I wager at least 2 for this comment.

>People downvote for the stupidest reasons anymore. It will be the death of good, well thought out but not conformist commentary and become a boring monoculture, just like everywhere else. I'm getting in the habit of looking for stupid downvotes and upvote. I wager at least 2 for this comment.

I got 4 downvotes for this. It's sad that just 4 people can ruin one of the last places to have a good conversation on the internet. Perhaps a reconsideration of how the karma system works is in order, in order to save meaningful dialog. Off the top of my head, I would suggest any downvote also removes a karma point from the down voter. Instead of risking karma for taking a considerate but unpopular position, people willing to quell thought and ideas should be risking their own karma. I believe suppressing ideas and thought is far worse than presenting an unpopular idea and therefore should be at a much higher cost.

Don't complain about downvoting: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7961827

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2569919

I won't be anymore. I think I'm probably done here. It's my only remaining method of protest.