Hacker News Reader

Comment by DaftDank | Hacker News Reader

Would you support them seizing data from someone who owns a legal marijuana cultivation business in San Diego (because he's so close to the "border area") and then sharing that information with the DEA to federally prosecute him? The definition of "law-abiding" there would get a little murky.

What if it's someone who grows weed for his personal, medical use in an illegal state?

View on HN

Why does it matter what I support?

Marijuana is federally illegal and comes with plenty of risks. I don't think CBP should be abusing border area privileges for drug-related offenses but technically the fed govt can use the support of any agency. It's highly unlikely that CBP/DEA would waste time if the establishment is legitimate given state laws unless you're helping a cartel or personally known as a major dealer.

> Marijuana is federally illegal and comes with plenty of risks

The only real risks are being arrested for using it, which was the whole point of making it illegal: to arrest you for it.

Sure, along with possible fines, incarceration, loss of property, civil judgments, reputation loss, etc.

Yeah, all of which may originate from the arrest. Which he already said is the biggest risk.

He said "only" risk. I consider them separate. Are we really debating the semantics of the plurality of risks in this situation? This thread is hopeless.

I'm saying you just repeated what he said with more words for no reason. Why are we talking about what affects an arrest might cause? It's not related at all.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com