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

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.




Registration is open for Startup School 2019. Classes start July 22nd.

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

Search: