zlacker

> [edit: after reading felonintexas let me update this. If someone point blank asks, tell them. Don’t volunteer this information. There is nothing to be gained]

My Fraternity's cook, when I was in college, was a former fellon. He worked for us for a few years before he told me about his background.

I don't remember the details, but we had a conversation where he mentioned he had experience in IT. Eventually he very briefly mentioned some high level details about his criminal record when the conversation drifted around "so if you were making big bucks, why are you now cooking for us?"

I personally appreciate that he warned me about the consequences of the super-illegal (but "grey morality") thing he did. But, I must agree, it's best to keep things like a record quiet as long as possible.

I don't know if other fraternity brothers knew about his background. It seems like the kind of thing that would be kept quiet until someone started veering into the super-illegal (but "grey morality") area that got our cook in trouble.

>>gwbas1+(OP)
> the super-illegal (but "grey morality") thing he did

I'm curious to know what he did given your description.

I can think of examples of the reverse: quasi-illegal, but quite immoral.

>>gwbas1+(OP)
Why did you let the conversation drift around to “if you were making big bucks why are you cooking for us now”? That’s a remarkably rude thing to ask for absolutely no reason other than ego.

>>hluska+m7
You’ve never chatted up a bartender where they end up telling you personal things after years? Maybe after they’ve served you food and beverage for a long time, you bond over X (sports, politics, whatever) and end up feeling like friends?

I hafta say, it seems like you’re the one with the ego.

Edit: if I had to guess, the cook probably said something like “I made a lot more money before I worked here.” And was then asked why.

>>hluska+m7
Seems normal to me

>>hluska+m7
This my friends is the danger of making judgements without context.

>>busyan+B4
Not the parent commenter, but I would imagine something involving narcotics.

>>hluska+m7
It's not rude at all.

First, the commenter could have been paraphrasing a longer conversation that led to that question.

Second, the "I used to be somebody" conversation is more common than you think. Asking "If you were somebody, what happened?" is usually the question that is being invited to be asked if someone brings up this topic.

>>hluska+m7
If you were talking with a friend, and you learned he used to make millions on Wall Street, you’d not even think of considering asking why he gave it up?

>>busyan+B4
Drugs? Contraband? Tax evasion? Insider trading? Industrial espionage? Any process crime like "lying to a fed"?

If you think about it, we have tons of laws that don't fit into the mold of "hurting specific people" - which would definitely be "black morality" to me - but are more of either "preserving the system as it is" or even "we said it's illegal and so it is". I'm not saying none of those should exist, but I definitely would be willing to look onto some of it as a morally "gray area".

>>smsm42+Oy
It could be “allowed a very hardy and aggressive weed to grow in an area of his property”.

>>smsm42+Oy
I agree, I just wouldn’t trust a felon to make an unbiased determination about the morality of their actions. The only item on your list that I would say is mostly gray area is insider trading - the rest are very much case dependent. A weed dealer might be gray area but someone who peddles crack cocaine is not.

Most people like to think they are good, even when presented with hard evidence that they’re not.

>>busyan+B4
I indirectly know someone who fits this description. (Friend of a friend, wouldn't be able to track down.)

Was part of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Chanology, got caught, went to jail. Yeah, super-illegal. But was it immoral?

If you don't know anything about the shady stuff that Scientology did, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QsCrFANMzc is a great video to start with.

>>hluska+m7
Not rude at all. I used to make several million a year. Then I got arrested and bank accounts frozen. I had to work stacking shelves in a supermarket. All my colleagues thought I was a BS artist when I said what I used to earn, and asked that question. Why wouldn't they? it's incongruous.

>>busyan+B4
I can think of stuff like hacking/leaking data about bad things, like a Snowden/Manning/Assange scenario. Or working on/around piracy (cracking software to bypass license checks, hosting a torrent website, etc.).

>>throwu+0F
> I just wouldn’t trust a felon to make an unbiased determination about the morality of their actions.

I wouldn't trust a single human to be objective about the morality of their actions

>>throwu+0F
Why is a weed dealer a gray area but cocaine not a gray area both are things people are consuming voluntarily into their own body why is one prohibited from consuming cocaine of their own volition but not marijuana

I'm of the position it all drugs even medical drugs should be free to consume by anybody I should be able to walk in to CVS and get heart medication if I want or cocaine if I want if CVS is willing to sell it to me it's not for the government to decide nor government licensed agents AKA doctors to decide what I consume into my own body

My body my choice

>>phpist+m91
I didn’t just say cocaine, I said crack cocaine. Crack is cooked by the dealers to be a cheaper and more addictive form of cocaine. I saw first hand what it did to LA in the back half of the last century, so yeah “your body your choice” or whatever you want to tell yourself, but the people dealing it knew what they were doing and it was blatantly immoral. There was no “gray area” about it. They invented a more profitable formula and destroyed their communities to make a little more cash.

>>phpist+m91
I agree with you on the "my choice" part. But I also believe that things which remove your choice from the equation are worth extra trouble.

Addictive substances are well established as a hazard not just to the individual, but to society. So I think government has an interest in avoiding/preventing/restricting addiction.

>>hluska+m7
In the context of "a house full of frat boys", your use of the term "rude" appears naive at best.

>>phpist+m91
Highly addictive drugs destroy lives and families. The little girl who’s father has a heroin addiction sure didn’t get any say in his choice, but she’s affected by it.

The citizens of communities ravaged by addiction all suffer, whether they individually consume the drug or not.

The idea that drug use is a victimless crime is patently false and all it takes is a few moments of thought to realize it.

No, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with adults smoking a joint after work or on the weekends if that’s what they choose to do, but it quickly devolves from there.

>>CodeSg+Oh1
>>>Highly addictive drugs destroy lives and families. The little girl who’s father has a heroin addiction sure didn’t get any say in his choice, but she’s affected by it.

Sorry no... This is 3rd party Liability and that can not be the basis for a free society, as at that point everything becomes regulated

Want to go back to Alcohol Prohibition as well?

Further The Father is also free to choose a job where he makes less money that would impact the "little girl" in negative ways, or may choose to tell off his boss and get fired, will you now regulate speech "for the children"

>>The idea that drug use is a victimless crime is patently false and all it takes is a few moments of thought to realize it.

Victimless crime is defined for First Party victimization, to most people 3rd party liability is not a thing, Ford is not responsible if someone kills someones else in a F150, A Gun Manufacturer is not responsible when someone kills someone with a gun... The victims of those crimes are victim of the PERSON that victimized them, the driver or murder

Drug abuse can lead to other crimes, such as theft, and the victims of those crimes are victims of the drug user.

However you can not have a free society if you start shifting the liability upstream, at that point you get in a Pre Crime laws (which is what Drug laws are) and you end up with a whole negative effect and tyranny

>>sofixa+661
> I can think of stuff like hacking/leaking data about bad things, l

I wasn't thinking in that direction, but that totally makes sense.

Thanks.

>>hluska+m7
(I don't get why the post was dead, so I vouched for it.)

He was talking about making good money in IT, so I asked why he didn't continue working in IT. (At least that's how I remember a conversation from over 20 years ago.)

He was originally talking about playing computer games on early computers, so I thought I'd get a story about why he left tech. (IE, laid off and had to change careers, couldn't keep up with changes, didn't like the stress.) I was quite surprised that he was a felon.

He really didn't tell me much about what he did, either. I don't want to repeat much here, other than to say he got greedy.

At a high level I don't think there's anything wrong with what he did. There's plenty of legal activities that are "grey" morally: Oil companies, tobacco companies, investments (stock, 401ks,) where ordinary people don't realize the nasty things the companies they own do...

>>CodeSg+Oh1
> The idea that drug use is a victimless crime is patently false

What about alcohol use then? Smoking? Buying high risk stocks, options and NFTs? Investing in high-risk startups? Working for a high-risk startups? Spending 100 hours per week on work and neglecting one's family? Any of these could potentially lead to very sad consequences for not only the individual involved but for the people close to them. But once you step on this road, it can lead you to a very weird places if you're not careful. Or you may throw the consistency out of the window and just say "but this is different!" - but then I'd welcome you to explain how exactly it's different.

> but it quickly devolves from there.

This is a so called "gateway" theory, and there are many indications it is false. For example: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB6010.html

I suspect that with further legalization and de-stigmatization of marijuana use, the link would become even weaker, because most users won't devolve anywhere - as most people who drink a can of beer on a weekend do not become raging alcoholics - and the cases where a person is driven to drug use by some problems not produced (though also not solved but frequently worsened) by drugs would be recognized as such instead of blaming the evil weed for everything. (NB: not a user myself, never did, never planning to)

>>CodeSg+Oh1
> a joint after work or on the weekends ... but it quickly devolves from there.

That's generally disproven, and demonstrates ignorance on your part.

It doesn't matter what the addiction is: Cigarettes, alcohol, gambling, video games, TV, sex, work, money, religion: No government regulation can force a person to live a "good" life, and these kinds of addictions, legal or not, can have nasty negative consequences.

It just so happens that certain substances are illegal due to politics, bias, and ignorance. There's good reasons that these substances should be controlled, but how we (assuming you are in the US or country with similar laws) control them isn't working. (Banning them just creates dangerous black markets.)

When it comes to dangerous narcotics like opioids, cocaine, ect, the biggest obstacle to reform is misinformation like "a joint after work or on the weekends ... but it quickly devolves from there". That's not how addiction works; and continuing to believe and repeat misinformation like that perpetuates the problem. (IE, the misinformation makes it politically difficult in the US to to offer forms of treatment that are proven to work.)