Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I don't think you being transgender relates at all to what the parent post was saying. No one wants to watch someone shoot up heroin on the sidewalk (and potentially step on a dirty needle). No one wants to second hand smoke crack. It's a public safety issue to move some of these activities out of public spaces.

I'm not even commenting on whether these things should be legal in private, but there are very good reasons they shouldn't be allowed in public.




Okay, so, guys.

People literally think i'm a child molester. People like my dad. People like the two guys who assaulted me for absolutely no reason, in public, while no bystanders did anything whatsoever (as a trans woman, i'm glad he police weren't called -- my friends have been arrested and charged in similar circumstances).

Get out of your bubble.


I think you're misinterpreting the grandparent post because they said "unwelcome and unsocial behavior". I believe they were trying to talk more about practical problems.

No one really wants to have to deal with used heroin needles on the ground.


That’s an entirely separate issue to what this post is about though. This is about making drug use legal.


Not really. The original post said the following.

>But I think a community must have ways to discourage or push people out of the public sphere who practice unwelcome and unsocial behavior.

The point is, in much of even modern day US, and even more so in the past, just existing as a transgender individual who doesn't attempt to pass is deemed by a significant portion of society as unwelcome and unsocial.

When you tie discrimination to what is deemed unacceptable behavior, you encounter an issue when deal with a society that deems acceptable behavior as unacceptable.


Your quote is exactly what I was responding to, but I would say my point is that solutions have externalities and if you provide a framework for social exclusion it will be used against the people least able to support and protect themselves.


[flagged]


There are many forms of unacceptable behavior that do not make it into law. Back in sociology class they mentioned three categories, though I don't know if these days they are used.

Laws are the strongest, the ones which we agree to directly take action against people who break these rules. That could be a fine. That could be years in prison.

Morals or mores are the second, where we will tend to exclude people and openly speak against them, but not take direct action. What actually constitutes a social more is quite hard to define as they aren't written down as laws, often change, and often are based in part on things we don't want to admit (such as having built in racism or sexism). In parts of the US, being openly transgender is against the exist social mores.

The last is folkways, where we generally have an accepted way of doing things but not really one we have openly agreed upon, and upon breaking it we don't have any socially agreed upon response. These are the weakest and are things that are more weird than wrong. A man having long hair would qualify as breaking a folkway in parts of the US.

Why do I bring this up?

Because, while transgenderism isn't against the law, there are definitely parts of society where it is against the mores of that portion of society and with some people being strongly enough against it they want to make it against the law. They likely won't succeed, but even the punishments for breaking social mores can be drastic.

The law is not the end all definition of socially unacceptable behavior, and it is a given fact that some portions of US society deems being openly transgender as against social mores. To call this out is not trolling.


> Because, while transgenderism isn't against the law, there are definitely parts of society where it is against the mores of that portion of society and with some people being strongly enough against it they want to make it against the law.

What does it mean to make transgenderism illegal? In the US it would not be possible to legislate someone's appearance or how they choose to identify.


While they can't just pass a law that outright bans it as a court would quickly strike it down, there are a lot of smaller laws they can pass to make it much worse.

Make it illegal for people to change their birth certificate. Make it so that all laws apply based on their original birth certificate, regardless of any changes having been made in other states or countries. Make it illegal to use facilities meant for the opposite gender. Expand fraud to include claiming and presenting as a gender not on their birth certificate, specifically when the other party is paying (yes, this could run into free speech issues). Legally declare it to be a mental illness (much like how federal law declares marijuana to have no medical value, actually being aligned with existing science is not required). Passing laws banning any form of transitioning involving minors. Pass laws introducing trans-panic as an affirmative defense for assault or homicide. Laws that prevent adoption by trans individuals (to the extent the state can do so).

I'm sure law makers spending months can come up with far worse laws that I could in 5 minutes.


> I'm sure law makers spending months can come up with far worse laws that I could in 5 minutes.

Except that they haven't though. A lot of the things you list have never even been seriously discussed. Some of them are very debatable (pro or con) on their own, such as making it illegal for minors to transition.

I think you're making a strawman and I still don't see what any of this has to do with not allowing public drug consumption.


There has been some minor discussion, but as of right now the group I was talking about doesn't have significant enough political power. The most one sees right now at a national or state level is bathroom bill discussion. At smaller government levels there are places that are much worse, but the limits on what laws they have control over keep them from passing worse laws.

>I think you're making a strawman

I think you don't have a good understanding of the sentiment large groups of the population have for trans people.

>and I still don't see what any of this has to do with not allowing public drug consumption.

You might want to go reread the entire thread. One use posted about a potential foundational reasoning that could be used to outlaw drug use in public and the rest of the conversation has been about how that one foundation is inadequate because of the unintended consequences of applying it elsewhere. Specifically, it was concerning one individual who reacted to it on a personal level, and trying to explain why the second individuals interpretation was not incorrect even if unintended.

A person can use entirely different foundations to reason that public drug use as bad and this wouldn't apply at all to them.

Put simply, this is not about not allowing public drug consumption, this is about one potential reason for not allowing public drug consumption.


Here's the original comment:

> I lean heavily towards giving people the freedom to do what they want, but in 'private' and without burdening public life of others. If people want to light up or shoot up, so be it. But I think a community must have ways to discourage or push people out of the public sphere who practice unwelcome and unsocial behavior. The gov't fully feeding, clothing, and sheltering large groups of addicts is impractical and unviable in most/all places.

As you can see there's nothing about trans people in that statement. I don't agree that this is an invalid way to feel, it's ok to label some behavior as antisocial. That doesn't mean that all of the sudden totally unrelated topics become antisocial. You say yourself that the anti-trans people don't have the power to impact these laws (and the constitution would stop them anyway). Do you really believe that there's no such thing as antisocial behavior that should be discouraged?


Most of those haven't been discussed because they were just accepted as normal until very recently.

gay and trans panic defenses are still allowed and used, today, in much of the usa


> When you tie discrimination to what is deemed unacceptable behavior, you encounter an issue when deal with a society that deems acceptable behavior as unacceptable.

No one is tying discrimination to the issue though. It’s 100% about public health. See my examples about dirty needles and crack smoke.


The point is that what people find to be "socially unacceptable" in public is totally arbitrary.

Why do you all really care if I smoke crack in public?


1. Your resultant behavior in public 2. The consequences to everyone of your addiction.


Arrest me on the basis of my resultant behavior then, if it necessitates that. Have you ever smoked crack? I have, a lot! What consequences? What behavior are you expecting from me?


As an addict, quite a bit.

As a casual user, keep it indoors and I don't really care. I'll still throw your pusher in jail for a while.


[flagged]


Please don't do this here.


Health is not arbitrary. Why do I care if you smoke crack in public? Because I don’t want to breathe your second hand crack smoke. I’m shocked that this point is being lost in the discussion as it seems quite obvious.


Well, it would be second hand crack vapor, which I really doubt would have any effect on others at all. Cocaine in small receational doses really isn't that harmful to begin with, let alone second hand microdoses. And what if I don't want your second hand gasoline fumes? I don't want or own a car, why should you get to drive one around in public? I absolutely guarantee you that your exhaust fumes are worse for my health than my second hand crack vapor is for your health.


what if they do it in a designated smoking area?



that link is about second hand smoke indoors. I wasn't specific, but I meant outdoors.


I question that the needed ventilation and filtering systems would be worth the cost. Also, crack makes people kinda crazy, no? Do you really want rooms full of people smoking crack everywhere? I know I'm talking about second hand smoke (which would be awful) but there are tons of other reasons this is a bad idea.


I'm honestly confused at your response. I am talking about people smoking outdoors in a designated smoking area and you keep talking about ventilation and filtering mechanism and rooms full of smokers. are we having the same conversation?

> Do you really want rooms full of people smoking crack everywhere?

I don't think anyone should smoke anything in public indoor spaces. it's unfair to people who have to breathe it. outside, at a designated smoking area? smoke whatever you want. I won't be inhaling it.

> Also, crack makes people kinda crazy, no?

maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. if they start acting aggressive, we already have laws against that.

I've now seen this debate play out many times over the years. people talk about health concerns, litter, violence, and all kinds of things like that. but it's already illegal to litter and it's already illegal to threaten people. if it's not already, it should be illegal to leave dirty needles around. but I think these are all just ways to avoid saying what people really mean: they just want drug users banished from their sight so they don't have to think about it.


> we already have laws against that... it's already illegal to litter and it's already illegal to threaten people. if it's not already, it should be illegal to leave dirty needles around.

Perfectly said. It's amazing how often this train of thought derails the discussion about drug legalization.


> they just want drug users banished from their sight so they don't have to think about it.

This by the way is a perfectly legitimate opinion to have. There's all kinds of stuff I don't want to watch people do in public, hard drug use is near the top. It's pretty weird that people think it's some sort of right they have (or should have).


I mean, it's a legitimate opinion in the sense that everyone is entitled to have opinions, but I can't agree that "unsightly behavior" is a good standard for justifying the use of state violence. just think about how many things your (proverbial) conservative uncle would consider unsightly in public and how many people might agree with him.


By this logic, literally everything would be acceptable though. Should people be allowed to have sex in the street? Part of living in society is placing the limit somewhere. I agree that it's debatable if the limit is here or not but it's definitely not clear cut that it isn't. There's a very good case to be made against using hard drugs in public and I think there's a good chunk of people that agree with that.


tbh, I'm not sure why people shouldn't be allowed to have sex in the street. no one is saying you have to have these people over for dinner or hire them for a job. they can still be denied entrance to restaurants and generally shunned from polite society. all I'm saying is maybe they don't need to be locked up.


All of society is going to be a compromise. You represent one extreme just as the theoretical conservative uncle represents the other. Meeting somewhere in the middle is the only way to have a functional and healthy society. I think most people would agree that hardcore drug use in public is not desirable. Like I said, I think it's worth debating but don't be surprised when the end result is repeatedly in favor of suppressing behavior like that.


You can't second hand smoke crack, that's not really how it works at all.

As for heroin, you can't just arrest people for shooting up in public and hope that's going to stop the problem.

The kinds of people who shoot up or light up a pipe in public are at such a low point in their life that the disincentive of arrest (and fines/jail) means literally nothing to them. They're also often homeless. Where exactly do you expect the homeless junkies to shoot up?

People doing hard drugs in public isn't like someone smoking a joint while walking down the street or even like someone drinking a 40 oz in public.

Instead, the better option is to take a pragmatic approach. In my city, in areas of high drug use, they have put needle disposal bins in the public toilets and other places people shoot up. Surprisingly, they actually do get used and have significantly reduced the number of used needles on the street.


> You can't second hand smoke crack, that's not really how it works at all.

Apparently, you are incorrect:

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/39528...

> As for heroin, you can't just arrest people for shooting up in public and hope that's going to stop the problem.

The problem is that they are shooting up in public, so if you take them out of the public then it sort of does stop the problem.


The attitude that trans people should be prevented from living in society is still widespread. A large number of people throughout the world think that it's damaging to society, harmful to children, etc... to have non-cis, non-straight people of any kind visible in public. Within the past few days, Nazis[0] disrupted a Pride march.

So I do think, stepping up a meta-level that a general opposition to using force to suppress people and behaviors that some or a majority of society sees as degenerate, dirty, or a threat to public safety (but not a direct harm to others) relates to the grandparent commenter being trans.

[0] No Godwin's Law here - literal Nazis: https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/AACC...


> but not a direct harm to others

The argument is that public drug use is a harm to others. I don't see how shooting up on the street has anything to do with being trans. One is a public health hazard, the other is a personal choice.

Yes there exists discrimination against trans people. That's an entirely separate issue that is not helpful to discuss with the original topic. We should be able to decide if we want second hand smoke, dirty needles, strung out people... in public without poisoning the debate well by bringing in non-related issues.


as a transgender woman I'm very consciously aware that I am considered by many the dregs of society -- worse than the drug addicts shitting on your streets. this is not a rational belief and it's not going away.

it's this fundamental lack of perspective that leads to y'all blithely supporting policy that will end with egregious human rights violations.

everything that sucks in our society is a result of how we've designed it. come to reality. your ideologies kill people.

it really sucks that "tech" has been fully subsumed by capital -- many of the visionaries that made the endless wealth fountain possible shared a vision of an equitable future that brought a better world and it was rooted in anticapitalist, social justice oriented philosophy. that feels so dead, these days.


While I absolutely believe that you get treated unfairly and that's a terrible thing, it has nothing to do with not wanting to step on needles or inhale crystal meth smoke. I don't even see why you're equating the two because one seems objectively horrible (hardcore drug use, with side effects, in public) and one isn't bad at all (being a trans person).


because of this: everything that sucks is the result of a system we've designed.

these people are victims of social views and policy as much as me. they aren't "hardcore drug use" they're people with a serious illness that develops as a result of something about our biology, culture, and environment.


They would be hurting other people if they used their drugs in public though, where you aren't. I also don't agree that people have no free will and can't be held responsible for their actions. Not everyone will make "good" choices and that's not society's fault. We need to reinstate some level of personal responsibility.


you've jumped to a conclusion, that also denies agency to people, that i don't share.

i believe strongly in accountability. which is why i believe, as a society, we must hold ourselves accountable and that means facing the hard truths such as: any of us posting here is wealthy in some way and that wealth has come at the cost of suffering and death in some way. the very least we can do in this (potentially last?) period of widespread economic development is work to build systems that are humane and healthy. it's not going to happen overnight, and it will never happen if we build a world that hides the unpleasant things from the public.

we see the impact of the problem, but if your solution is to hide it then you haven't identified the actual problem and in this case externalizing the cost of actual human lives and suffering.


Yes, I think we would never agree on most of this. For me accountability begins and ends the individual level. I can never be accountable for someone else's actions and they can never be accountable for mine.


I think generally in society we've accepted a structure in which the people with more power (e.g. higher in the org chart) are ostensibly responsible and accountable for the actions of those under them. This is largely the same concept. I do not understand how you expect to have a functional, just, and free society based solely on individual accountability if you can just externalize human suffering and stash it elsewhere


Sure, in the artificial construct of "work" you have accountability. You don't have a "boss" of your life though, you are solely responsible for yourself.

> I do not understand how you expect to have a functional, just, and free society based solely on individual accountability if you can just externalize human suffering and stash it elsewhere

You must accept that there will be some level of human suffering (quite a lot of it actually). It's quixotic to believe this will ever go away. All humans die eventually after all. Other than that, empathy at the individual level will bubble up in aggregate. This will vary from person to person. Some people want to go volunteer their time for charity, some won't. Again, this is all an immutable feature of living creatures.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: