|
On May 31 2015 08:49 Caihead wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2015 08:31 CosmicSpiral wrote:On May 31 2015 08:29 PassiveAce wrote: Is your point that because the US government gets away with murder Ulbricht should be allowed to get away with murder too? The inverse, but thank you for perfectly illustrating my real point. You can invoke systematic hypocrisy regardless of whether the verdict in question is justifiable or not, all it does is derail the conversation. I find that almost all the arguments for why Ulbricht shouldn't be punished as harshly is that other individuals or organizations are doing more illegal / morally abhorrent things and not being penalized as harshly or not at all; instead of directing their energy towards those other organizations and talking about it in the appropriate channels and seeking penalties for those individuals or organizations as well. Completely counter intuitive behavior.
My argument is that life sentence is bullshit and no prison sentence should ever be longer than 20ish years, no matter the crime.
Having the ability to get out and do something with your life after prison is the whole purpose of prison. When a person is imprisoned, state is effectively given a time period of X years to reform that person to be an upstanding member of the society. They may succeed, they may fail, but either way the person walks after a reasonable period of time spent behind bars.
|
Everyone knew before the sentence was announced, that Ross Ulbricht was fucked. The prosecution showed the Silk Road generated revenues of more than $213 million from January 2011 to October 2013. The FBI stated they seized $28.5 Million in bitcoins from his account.
This is big bucks, imagine what the real total is factoring other darknet markets around the globe. But there is a side to this which has to be told too. We have to mention the things that are usually in absentia for convenience, from these discussions.
The global drug industry is worth a fair bit. According to the UN anyway.
A United Nations publication of 1998, Economic and Social Consequences of Drug Abuse and Illicit Trafficking states that:
With estimates of $100 billion to $110 billion for heroin, $110 billion to $130 billion for cocaine, $75 billion for cannabis and $60 billion for synthetic drugs, the probable global figure for the total illicit drug industry would be approximately $360 billion. Given the conservative bias in some of the estimates for individual substances, a turnover of around $400 billion per annum is considered realistic.
That was data from 1998 people. There is money in drugs. This site estimates the total this year to be $164,692,000,00 (At least I assume that figure is in US $).
Now we live in a global economy, we're all interconnected through stock markets and trade. So what's the story that needs to be brought into the discussion of drug use or drug law? A first point I'll raise is on what happens to other countries with the current global government's anti drug policy.
You have demand in the USA (just to highlight one country, it might as well be Europe). And where on that side of the globe are the drugs produced? The South American countries. So you have all this demand and all this supply and the drugs ship north. Now the vast amount of potential money making here has a direct effect to this region, bribery and corruption for one, it breeds. The legacy of having all this profit going to unscrupulous paramilitary bosses, who can kit his guys out with all the latest in weaponry, and just butcher those who oppose or are in competition with him is a terrible blight on the history of humanity, multiple headless corpses turning up. Husbands just vanishing. 28,000 forced disappearances in Colombia alone in 2009 as a direct result of these animals who get so rich, they can buy out the police force should they wish.
Now I've been riding quite hard on South America. I mean no ill will towards those who live in these countries, this is all happening as a direct result of the supply and demand mechanic. All this violence. Misery. Injustice. Poverty. Is because of the West's demand for narcotics, and where the money ends up in this supply chain. I'll get back to this point later.
Let's look at Mexico now. Because that's where a lot of this stuff tries to cross the border on its journey north. Now some pictures are needed, because you have to understand how violent, and brutal things get when you have a gang culture that is worth billions yearly. You have to know, see and understand what people in South America deal with. So these pictures are graphic. War pictures are OK in the Pictures that say 1000 words, so in that vain I say don't look if you don't want too. And perhaps ask some leeway from the admins, as we can't just have a drug policy discussion and conveniently ignore something that is intrinsically globally linked.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Drug_War
+ Show Spoiler +AFP via Yahoo! News – Sun Jan 9, 9:28 pm ET Drug related violence over the weekend claimed 51 lives across Mexico, including 15 decapitations in the beach resort of Acapulco, authorities reportedWhen these animals target those who don't conform. This happens. Seven police officers have been dragged from their homes, tortured and murdered by a drug Cartel in northern Mexico.
You get the idea. It's brutal, barbaric murder. The more violent the better, to stand as a warning to those who defy. Police in Mexico wear balaclavas so they can't be tracked so easily. This is the consequence they face if found. Against a merciless group of killers who have all the money. What fucking heroes the law enforcement are in these countries to be under so much pressure to take easy big money, or fight for law and order. Walk a mile in their shoes before you judge them taking illegal money.
So we have a legacy of destruction that permeates society in South America.
And the drugs end up in American cities. Where does it go? To the distributors who are gangs. There's big money in drugs! We established this at the start. So kids die on street corners selling drugs in poor rundown neighbourhoods. There's no job prospect, or few, and again we have big profits available. What happens in Mexico, is just repeated on a different scale. The bad guys want the profit now, the hard shit was getting the drugs in. Young innocent kids die playing on their bikes, whilst caught in crossfires, little children with everything in front of them. This happens in the US, UK and I bet almost every country in the world.
You have gangs like Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13) Appearing on the block, looking for some of this money. Violent gangs who're into people smuggling, child prostitution, gangland hits. There's an exponential growth in the violence these gangs use to mark their territory.
Nazi Low Riders, who preach racism, get rich from the sale of methamphetamine, a drug which destroys lives.
The Bloods, The Crips. The list goes on and on. There will constantly be a kids born to this environment that will just get trapped into this culture, and become the next tragically moving story to hear from mothers and fathers who've lost their kids to gang violence.
Point two is about the policy of incarceration, and what it really means for you.
These gang bangers get locked up or killed sooner or later. From the kid in South America with a Kalashnikov, to the streets of America. They die in great numbers. In some countries in South America the cops actively cleanse the streets, killing as they go, mere victims of situation. They also end up in jail in great numbers. Kids who've grown up with only the gang showing them love or respect, who are often from dysfunctional back grounds, and even those who are psychologically disturbed, how else could you reasonably describe someone who grew up with bullet wounds, and saw his or her friends dying in gang land, drug related hits?
In the UK, I read on the NHS (National Health Service) Website that 1 in 10 of the prison population does not have a diagnosable mental health related condition. I fail to see how things could not be similar, or even worse in all jails around the globe.
So these gang bangers end up in jail for life, having only known their gang, walking next to a guy openly displaying racist tattoos. The violence just continues in jail. Look for gangland related violence documentaries on YouTube. It's brutal. And the leaders of these gangs don't stop pulling strings even behind bars. Ordering hits on cops sometimes. Their competitors. Whole families wiped out.
Here's the killer. It's costing you America, you Europe, you Australia, you South Africa, you Russia, more and more money. These guys have to get health care under law, expensive drug treatments on occasion, and as these lifers get older, they need more health care, more support. And you pay the bill. We're all living longer after all.
Everyone wants tough on crime sentencing, no one wants to invest in prisons or rehabilitation. So when these guys get out they don't fall into a pattern of recidivism , and recommit crime over and over. They say they are happier on the inside in some ways than the outside, the regulation it gives them, what the fuck does this say of our society, that we breed people who end up happier in prison. They should be given support, learn how to break the cycle and contribute in society. And taking away gang bangers biggest source of profit (drugs) Will do nicely thanks.
Back to the supply chain. What would happen in say South America, if the profit of drug sales didn't go to drug cartel bosses, but went to the government, the very same people who are underpaid and risking their lives.. fighting an impossible battle with no money...
Hmmm? Just think on this for a moment.
If the UN got together with the west and regulated drug use. Let's just go for it here. And Mexico's government was offered $100 billion next year alone, this money to be monitored in its use by the UN in detail. And schools got built, sanitation was plumbed in, the favelas of Rio de Janeiro, torn down maybe.. Money going to the government, rather than to para military drug cartel groups.
Just think about this.
What about in the US? Rather than money going to gangs, it went into rejuvenation of poor areas? Keeping kids in class, living in good conditions, mental health support for those who need it. (1 in 3 will need mental health intervention at some point in their life by the way). The money is going to the wrong place under the current laws. This is devastating lives globally. And you will never ever, in a million years stamp out drug use.
Here's point 3. The drugs can be taxed. The quality maintained. People won't overdose from toxic additions for the profit margin. Numbers would also be known. Support given for those who do fall into the trap of heavy drugs like heroin or meth. And remember guys and girls, we got money now, the baddies don't get the money any more, this can be funded. Safe practises taught and intervention given to educate those who fall into this trap. A way out from self medication from the fucked up society we live in.
To parents who lost their kids. This happens, and will happen regardless of drugs legality status, he'd fuck himself up on alcohol or food, some people are just self destructive by nature. Sorry for laying it down. Would he of had a better chance to get out of the circle, had massive amounts of money been invested on teaching against hard drug use? Supporting those who do, help stop the transmission of HIV and AIDS?
When it comes to drug abuse people say that marijuana is a gateway drug. Here's the next point: It's not the drug itself which is the gateway, but where the drugs are sourced from. Street dealers facilitate the distribution of all drugs because all drugs are illegal. It's not the drug that's the gateway, it's the point of distribution. And if you hang out with a group who have hard drugs, it's entirely possible you would end up taking that too. Just like your friends likely influenced your taste in music when growing up.
Now if this is all regulated. You don't have this, if you're destructive by nature, a victim of a tough live in some way, you'll find a way to fuck yourself up regardless. I say use the money generated to support and educate instead, and help those who were previously no more than victims of living a poor life who's been given no choices, or raped.. or gang banged or sold into slavery, and so on. The cross contamination from hard drugs and marijuana is not there anymore if it's regulated, and money is available to help those who do fall.
Point number 4 is that THC, the compound in marijuana has active anti cancer use. Fact. The big pharmacological companies aren't interested because they can't patent a plant. No money in it for them.
+ Show Spoiler +Cannabis can kill cancer cells and shrink one of the most serious types of brain tumours, new advice reveals. The National Institute on Drug Abuse in the US has admitted, in its revised publication on marijuana, that the drug offers benefits to some cancer patients. The report states: 'Recent animal studies have shown that marijuana extracts may help kill certain cancer cells and reduce the size of others. 'Evidence from one animal study suggests that extracts from whole-plant marijuana can slow the growth of cancer cells from one of the most serious types of brain tumours. 'Research in mice showed that these extracts, when used with radiation, increased the cancer-killing effects of the radiation.' The term medicinal marijuana refers to using the whole unprocessed plant or its basic extracts to treat a disease or symptom. Currently the drug is not recognised by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as a medicine. However, studies of the chemicals in marijuana - cannabinoids - has led the FDA to approve two medications that contain cannabinoid chemicals. Currently two cannabinoids, of around 100, are of medical interest - THC and CBD. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-3036667/How-cannabis-help-cancer-patients-Drug-kills-cancer-cells-shrinks-brain-tumours-report-reveals.html#ixzz3bhsc4dvF
The current laws are of no benefit to society. And laws should be. No one is going to start injecting heroin out of the blue if drugs are regulated. There is always more to the story. And how we should view this long term is to look at solutions for a reality that won't ever go away, and are a global issue.
And don't even fucking start me on how this is all integrated with politics and the military industrial complex.
|
That's a lot of words for something tangentially related to the topic, with a lot of bolded and italicized text to boot.
|
On May 31 2015 19:47 bo1b wrote: That's a lot of words for something tangentially related to the topic, with a lot of bolded and italicized text to boot.
You just can't separate drug law, drug use and punishment. There is so much more to it, and the punishment of Ross going to prison for life, for facilitating what certain aspects of society want, doesn't change anything. It helps no one.
This sentence ripples across across us all. The War on Drugs. We're making it harder, not easier on ourselves.
This is different and separate to any allegations of contract killing.
|
I can mostly agree with what you are saying, particularly how prisons almost everywhere are just a disgrace to humanity, lacking funds and will never help changing a person's life for the better. However, I just want to point out that it's naive to think that legalizing drug trade will solve anything.
Legalizing/Taxing drugs: Just because the whole thing is legit, doesn't mean the people who have been successful in this business until now will just disappear. First of all, once their operation is legal (assuming they pay their taxes), they can't be prosecuted anymore. Since these high ranking people mostly can't be linked directly to the violence that happens everyday in that context, they are basically given a "get out of jail free" card. Furthermore, the people that you and I would condemn have accumulated substantial funds and built infrastructure, so they could continue doing their thing, i.e. they would completely legally be leading distributors and/or producers, which doesn't seem appealing to me at all.
Gangs/organized crime: People (mostly) turn to crime because they have no alternative means of earning money. The whole thing rides on the problems we have because the rich exploit the poor. The West exploits "3rd world" countries (how did they end up in that position and why can't they change it?), the big companies exploit the common worker and all the variations of that same theme. As it is, the ressources of the world simply won't be distributed fairly, making this a problem without any solution that could be realized anytime soon. The gangs won't disappear just because drugs can be sold in ordinary stores, the people who need to turn to crime for money still face the same problems.
I don't see what arguments in favor of Marijuana have to do with this. The big bucks come from the highly addictive substances like meth and heroin.
How fair or unfair certain punishments are also depends highly on each individual's opinion. Currently there are obviously more people in favor of the established punishment for drug crimes than against them - or people are too complacent to change anything, even if they care.
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On May 31 2015 19:53 fruity. wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2015 19:47 bo1b wrote: That's a lot of words for something tangentially related to the topic, with a lot of bolded and italicized text to boot. You just can't separate drug law, drug use and punishment. There is so much more to it, and the punishment of Ross going to prison for life, for facilitating what certain aspects of society want, doesn't change anything. It helps no one. This sentence ripples across across us all. The War on Drugs. We're making it harder, not easier on ourselves. This is different and separate to any allegations of contract killing. Just because there is a demand within society for a certain service/good, doesn't mean that providing that service is legitimate or shouldn't be subject to appropriate punishment. Whether or not you personally believe in the drug laws in place doesn't change the fact that they are the law, and if you break the law you're liable for punishment as outlined in the law. You can campaign to change those laws because you feel them to be unjust, but you don't have license to break those laws because you don't think they are legitimate. And while it would be nice if all the drugs we were talking about were all as mild as weed, but the reality is that certain drugs pose a very serious and very real harm to users and silk road facilitated the distribution of these.
|
Sentencing seems entirely appropriate, and I despise my country's drug laws. DPR is not the person to start with if one wants to indict the propriety of the life sentence in contemporary sentencing schemes lol.
|
|
On May 31 2015 21:09 Plexa wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2015 19:53 fruity. wrote:On May 31 2015 19:47 bo1b wrote: That's a lot of words for something tangentially related to the topic, with a lot of bolded and italicized text to boot. You just can't separate drug law, drug use and punishment. There is so much more to it, and the punishment of Ross going to prison for life, for facilitating what certain aspects of society want, doesn't change anything. It helps no one. This sentence ripples across across us all. The War on Drugs. We're making it harder, not easier on ourselves. This is different and separate to any allegations of contract killing. Just because there is a demand within society for a certain service/good, doesn't mean that providing that service is legitimate or shouldn't be subject to appropriate punishment. Whether or not you personally believe in the drug laws in place doesn't change the fact that they are the law, and if you break the law you're liable for punishment as outlined in the law. You can campaign to change those laws because you feel them to be unjust, but you don't have license to break those laws because you don't think they are legitimate. And while it would be nice if all the drugs we were talking about were all as mild as weed, but the reality is that certain drugs pose a very serious and very real harm to users and silk road facilitated the distribution of these.
You know I'm sure people said the same exact thing about black people riding in the front of the bus, sitting at lunch counters, and so on.
Drug laws are destroying millions of families. It's a horrible affront to humanity and those who support draconian drug laws are part of the problem.
Reverting back to the 'dangers of drugs' is ridiculous. There is a reason prohibition against alcohol failed miserably and only made things worse. You would think ~100 years would be long enough for people to get a clue.
Corrupt law enforcement has far more to do with drug distribution than this schmuck with his 'silk road'.
|
Just waiting for the Scorsese adaptation of this to be made... or maybe Guy Ritchie with how the dea handled things.
|
On June 01 2015 00:00 Lightswarm wrote:How many people in this thread actually followed the Silk Road trial? The defense had evidence of the 2 agents investigating Silk Road pocketing government seized bitcoins, forging warrants, and fabricating a contract kill on a (former?) Silk Road employee http://motherboard.vice.com/read/how-a-two-timing-dea-agent-got-busted-for-making-money-off-the-silk-road. However, the courts hurried past mentioning the 2 agents' involvement, and only arrested the agents AFTER Ross Ulbricht had been found guilty. I honestly believe the whole reason why silk road is getting shut down in the first place is because they got too big, it is losing FBI reputation and they have to go down hard on this one to re-establish their position
|
On June 01 2015 00:26 ETisME wrote:I honestly believe the whole reason why silk road is getting shut down in the first place is because they got too big, it is losing FBI reputation and they have to go down hard on this one to re-establish their position
I think by using bitcoins he was circumventing a lot of the people who usually get a piece and they were pissed. The DEA, FBI, and other criminal organizations like HSBC. They were all getting cut out of the deal. to act like drugs could be as prevalent as they are without tacit government approval (of at least some providers) seems totally ridiculous to me. Particularly when we look into the history of governments using drug money to fund operations.
|
Monolithic complicity is an illusion best fit for those unable or unwilling to acknowledge the fragmented nature of government-enforced rule systems. But yes, go ahead and keep thinking that "the powers that be" is an actual thing and that "they" are deliberately keeping minorities down through some de facto drug distribution allowance.
|
On June 01 2015 02:09 farvacola wrote: Monolithic complicity is an illusion best fit for those unable or unwilling to acknowledge the fragmented nature of government-enforced rule systems. But yes, go ahead and keep thinking that "the powers that be" is an actual thing and that "they" are deliberately keeping minorities down through some de facto drug distribution allowance.
It's not monolithic. I think you terribly misunderstand/are intentionally misrepresenting what I'm saying. I think the parallels to prohibition of alcohol should make it pretty easy to understand what I'm talking about.
|
On May 31 2015 21:09 Plexa wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2015 19:53 fruity. wrote:On May 31 2015 19:47 bo1b wrote: That's a lot of words for something tangentially related to the topic, with a lot of bolded and italicized text to boot. You just can't separate drug law, drug use and punishment. There is so much more to it, and the punishment of Ross going to prison for life, for facilitating what certain aspects of society want, doesn't change anything. It helps no one. This sentence ripples across across us all. The War on Drugs. We're making it harder, not easier on ourselves. This is different and separate to any allegations of contract killing. Just because there is a demand within society for a certain service/good, doesn't mean that providing that service is legitimate or shouldn't be subject to appropriate punishment. Whether or not you personally believe in the drug laws in place doesn't change the fact that they are the law, and if you break the law you're liable for punishment as outlined in the law. You can campaign to change those laws because you feel them to be unjust, but you don't have license to break those laws because you don't think they are legitimate. And while it would be nice if all the drugs we were talking about were all as mild as weed, but the reality is that certain drugs pose a very serious and very real harm to users and silk road facilitated the distribution of these.
So true, it's against the law. No one ever expected anything other than a long term (or worse) As punishment. But the way the current drugs laws are, doesn't tackle the problem, period. I think it was Nixon who first coined the term War on Drugs, the war hasn't been won yet, nor will it be tomorrow or the day after. In fact, never.
In our privileged western lives, we take a hard stance on drug abuse and have law to punish. Now this has a direct consequence to poor countries around the globe. This has to be mentioned, there is a trail of blood behind drugs under the current system, from street corners in your city, to the favelas In Brazil.
The US, Europe and countries around the globe haven't won the war after spending billions tackling drugs and punishing. The system doesn't work. And sure Silk Road sold hard drugs, just people self medicating to deal with their lives, that's the bottom line as I see it. Portugal decriminalised heroin, built in support programs, and guess what, heroin use went down, cases of AIDS went down (which was the aim of the program). We win the war through support and education, not locking up and throwing away the key, or forgetting the cost in lives in other countries.
|
On June 01 2015 05:30 fruity. wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2015 21:09 Plexa wrote:On May 31 2015 19:53 fruity. wrote:On May 31 2015 19:47 bo1b wrote: That's a lot of words for something tangentially related to the topic, with a lot of bolded and italicized text to boot. You just can't separate drug law, drug use and punishment. There is so much more to it, and the punishment of Ross going to prison for life, for facilitating what certain aspects of society want, doesn't change anything. It helps no one. This sentence ripples across across us all. The War on Drugs. We're making it harder, not easier on ourselves. This is different and separate to any allegations of contract killing. Just because there is a demand within society for a certain service/good, doesn't mean that providing that service is legitimate or shouldn't be subject to appropriate punishment. Whether or not you personally believe in the drug laws in place doesn't change the fact that they are the law, and if you break the law you're liable for punishment as outlined in the law. You can campaign to change those laws because you feel them to be unjust, but you don't have license to break those laws because you don't think they are legitimate. And while it would be nice if all the drugs we were talking about were all as mild as weed, but the reality is that certain drugs pose a very serious and very real harm to users and silk road facilitated the distribution of these. So true, it's against the law. No one ever expected anything other than a long term (or worse) As punishment. But the way the current drugs laws are, doesn't tackle the problem, period. I think it was Nixon who first coined the term War on Drugs, the war hasn't been won yet, nor will it be tomorrow or the day after. In fact, never. In our privileged western lives, we take a hard stance on drug abuse and have law to punish. Now this has a direct consequence to poor countries around the globe. This has to be mentioned, there is a trail of blood behind drugs under the current system, from street corners in your city, to the favelas In Brazil. The US, Europe and countries around the globe haven't won the war after spending billions tackling drugs and punishing. The system doesn't work. And sure Silk Road sold hard drugs, just people self medicating to deal with their lives, that's the bottom line as I see it. Portugal decriminalised heroin, built in support programs, and guess what, heroin use went down, cases of AIDS went down (which was the aim of the program). We win the war through support and education, not locking up and throwing away the key, or forgetting the cost in lives in other countries.
Are you referring to this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal#Laws_and_regulations
Your facts are wrong:
Drug use wasn't legalised, only that if you possessed less than a certain amount, you aren't charged with possible prison sentences. Your drugs are still confiscated and you are required to enter rehabilitation. There was no mention that drug use ever went down, just the collaterals of drug usage - HIV and other STDs. Drug selling is still illegal and prosecuted.
|
Wow, that is insane...
On May 31 2015 03:51 tree.hugger wrote: Good riddance. Yea...
|
On June 01 2015 06:52 buhhy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2015 05:30 fruity. wrote:On May 31 2015 21:09 Plexa wrote:On May 31 2015 19:53 fruity. wrote:On May 31 2015 19:47 bo1b wrote: That's a lot of words for something tangentially related to the topic, with a lot of bolded and italicized text to boot. You just can't separate drug law, drug use and punishment. There is so much more to it, and the punishment of Ross going to prison for life, for facilitating what certain aspects of society want, doesn't change anything. It helps no one. This sentence ripples across across us all. The War on Drugs. We're making it harder, not easier on ourselves. This is different and separate to any allegations of contract killing. Just because there is a demand within society for a certain service/good, doesn't mean that providing that service is legitimate or shouldn't be subject to appropriate punishment. Whether or not you personally believe in the drug laws in place doesn't change the fact that they are the law, and if you break the law you're liable for punishment as outlined in the law. You can campaign to change those laws because you feel them to be unjust, but you don't have license to break those laws because you don't think they are legitimate. And while it would be nice if all the drugs we were talking about were all as mild as weed, but the reality is that certain drugs pose a very serious and very real harm to users and silk road facilitated the distribution of these. So true, it's against the law. No one ever expected anything other than a long term (or worse) As punishment. But the way the current drugs laws are, doesn't tackle the problem, period. I think it was Nixon who first coined the term War on Drugs, the war hasn't been won yet, nor will it be tomorrow or the day after. In fact, never. In our privileged western lives, we take a hard stance on drug abuse and have law to punish. Now this has a direct consequence to poor countries around the globe. This has to be mentioned, there is a trail of blood behind drugs under the current system, from street corners in your city, to the favelas In Brazil. The US, Europe and countries around the globe haven't won the war after spending billions tackling drugs and punishing. The system doesn't work. And sure Silk Road sold hard drugs, just people self medicating to deal with their lives, that's the bottom line as I see it. Portugal decriminalised heroin, built in support programs, and guess what, heroin use went down, cases of AIDS went down (which was the aim of the program). We win the war through support and education, not locking up and throwing away the key, or forgetting the cost in lives in other countries. Are you referring to this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal#Laws_and_regulationsYour facts are wrong: Drug use wasn't legalised, only that if you possessed less than a certain amount, you aren't charged with possible prison sentences. Your drugs are still confiscated and you are required to enter rehabilitation. There was no mention that drug use ever went down, just the collaterals of drug usage - HIV and other STDs. Drug selling is still illegal and prosecuted.
The stance on drug use changed from being dealt with under a criminal system, to an administrative one. Yeah you still get processed, but not in the same way, and the real point here is how heroin use went down, that's what I previously read on this, I have no idea which study this was. It was aimed at reducing AIDS from needle use for example and this in the study, along with support and education led to reduced cases. The heroin was decriminalised, and looked up more administratively, and this had tangible results.
You'll never win this war, ever. And putting vast sums of money into criminals hands isn't the answer. And that's how it is now.
|
On May 31 2015 08:49 Caihead wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2015 08:31 CosmicSpiral wrote:On May 31 2015 08:29 PassiveAce wrote: Is your point that because the US government gets away with murder Ulbricht should be allowed to get away with murder too? The inverse, but thank you for perfectly illustrating my real point. You can invoke systematic hypocrisy regardless of whether the verdict in question is justifiable or not, all it does is derail the conversation. I find that almost all the arguments for why Ulbricht shouldn't be punished as harshly is that other individuals or organizations are doing more illegal / morally abhorrent things and not being penalized as harshly or not at all; instead of directing their energy towards those other organizations and talking about it in the appropriate channels and seeking penalties for those individuals or organizations as well. Completely counter intuitive behavior. Hear hear. But alas, the powers that are, write the rules, thus, how can one even attempt to defy them?
This entire case is a blatant corruption of power. Is there truly justice when the accuser uses the same methods as the defendant to provoke/ensure guilt? If so, when does one draw the line? Is morality considered? If so, is hypocrisy moral?
The FBI accused DPR of murder to fast-track an investigate and gain warrants from officials to break laws without any pushback or any concern of explanation. Such as the Iraq war, one may produce completely false accusations, and know full well, there will be no consequence in doing so, because the reason was 'justice'; aka, protecting the people; society; integrity of democracy, etc. Whom would dare defend an idea, when the idea can be perceived as a an act of treason, or to harbor a murderer? That would be political and social suicide for that individual. So, say what you want, and if it's bad enough, nobody will go against the idea, and in turn, you receive what is needed to do what you wish.
Is it justice for someone to accuse someone of hacking, and to prove this, the accuser hacks? I think not. But hey, if you don't hide yo kids hide yo wife, then you live in fear, and golly gee, fear is so scary, we will let anyone do anything to save us.
|
On June 01 2015 07:17 fruity. wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2015 06:52 buhhy wrote:On June 01 2015 05:30 fruity. wrote:On May 31 2015 21:09 Plexa wrote:On May 31 2015 19:53 fruity. wrote:On May 31 2015 19:47 bo1b wrote: That's a lot of words for something tangentially related to the topic, with a lot of bolded and italicized text to boot. You just can't separate drug law, drug use and punishment. There is so much more to it, and the punishment of Ross going to prison for life, for facilitating what certain aspects of society want, doesn't change anything. It helps no one. This sentence ripples across across us all. The War on Drugs. We're making it harder, not easier on ourselves. This is different and separate to any allegations of contract killing. Just because there is a demand within society for a certain service/good, doesn't mean that providing that service is legitimate or shouldn't be subject to appropriate punishment. Whether or not you personally believe in the drug laws in place doesn't change the fact that they are the law, and if you break the law you're liable for punishment as outlined in the law. You can campaign to change those laws because you feel them to be unjust, but you don't have license to break those laws because you don't think they are legitimate. And while it would be nice if all the drugs we were talking about were all as mild as weed, but the reality is that certain drugs pose a very serious and very real harm to users and silk road facilitated the distribution of these. So true, it's against the law. No one ever expected anything other than a long term (or worse) As punishment. But the way the current drugs laws are, doesn't tackle the problem, period. I think it was Nixon who first coined the term War on Drugs, the war hasn't been won yet, nor will it be tomorrow or the day after. In fact, never. In our privileged western lives, we take a hard stance on drug abuse and have law to punish. Now this has a direct consequence to poor countries around the globe. This has to be mentioned, there is a trail of blood behind drugs under the current system, from street corners in your city, to the favelas In Brazil. The US, Europe and countries around the globe haven't won the war after spending billions tackling drugs and punishing. The system doesn't work. And sure Silk Road sold hard drugs, just people self medicating to deal with their lives, that's the bottom line as I see it. Portugal decriminalised heroin, built in support programs, and guess what, heroin use went down, cases of AIDS went down (which was the aim of the program). We win the war through support and education, not locking up and throwing away the key, or forgetting the cost in lives in other countries. Are you referring to this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal#Laws_and_regulationsYour facts are wrong: Drug use wasn't legalised, only that if you possessed less than a certain amount, you aren't charged with possible prison sentences. Your drugs are still confiscated and you are required to enter rehabilitation. There was no mention that drug use ever went down, just the collaterals of drug usage - HIV and other STDs. Drug selling is still illegal and prosecuted. The stance on drug use changed from being dealt with under a criminal system, to an administrative one. Yeah you still get processed, but not in the same way, and the real point here is how heroin use went down, that's what I previously read on this, I have no idea which study this was. It was aimed at reducing AIDS from needle use for example and this in the study, along with support and education led to reduced cases. The heroin was decriminalised, and looked up more administratively, and this had tangible results. You'll never win this war, ever. And putting vast sums of money into criminals hands isn't the answer. And that's how it is now.
Heroin use is going down because there is 30+years of information about how awfully it destroys a person's life. The new young addicts prefer meth, but it hasn't changed anything about people getting addicted. Germany has decriminalized drug posession too and that's just to make it slightly easier for addicts to break out of their criminal lives, they get prosecuted for theft etc anyway. I've never heard of it having any effect other than decrease the workload for law enforcement and keeping the criminal record of a few people clean.
|
|
|
|