|
On June 01 2015 00:12 GreenHorizons 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. 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'.
The examples you gave aren't really parallels to the drug issue, in the case of racist laws and segregation, people publicly campaigned and performed open civil disobedience and willingly handed themselves over to authorities with the goal being to change the laws. Rosa Parks wasn't trying to profit off racial hatred and inequality, but rather to over turn it so that there wouldn't be anyone profiting from that legal situation.
This guy clearly profited from illegal activity, did little to nothing to actually advocate change, actively evaded authorities and public discourse, and committed a bunch of other shady shit which are not defensible (obvious blackmailing, actively seeking ties to organized crime, actively trying to "get rid of problems" by hiring hitmen, etc).
You say drug laws destroy millions of families, loads of illegal drugs themselves also destroy millions of families. The horrors of having a relative / friend / loved one dealing with the costs of drug withdrawal, addiction, and serious medical conditions, is at least equal if not worse, than the horrors of having that same person having to be in prison.
Drugs can be recreational, safe, and serve a purpose, but that's OBVIOUSLY NOT what the majority of drug dealers (including cigarettes and alcohol distributors) want their product to be for. They WANT drugs to be addictive with huge profit margins, and marketed to vulnerable demographics, damn all the social and health consequences. Marijuana is one case out of literally hundreds of thousands of biological or chemical concoctions, most societies are obviously neither informed, equipped with the necessary tools, nor possess the level of material prestige or legal precedence to deal with legalizing drugs. A first time marijuana user probably doesn't have a clue what potential mix of chemicals he's really putting into his body nor the chemical and medical background to understand it, where as tobacco and alcohol are vastly better documented.
|
On June 01 2015 09:30 Caihead wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2015 00:12 GreenHorizons 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. 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'. You say drug laws destroy millions of families, loads of illegal drugs themselves also destroy millions of families. The horrors of having a relative / friend / loved one dealing with the costs of drug withdrawal, addiction, and serious medical conditions, is at least equal if not worse, than the horrors of having that same person having to be in prison. Drugs can be recreational, safe, and serve a purpose, but that's OBVIOUSLY NOT what the majority of drug dealers (including cigarettes and alcohol distributors) want their product to be for...
I'm not sure your points really counter the suggestion of legalizing drugs, if that's what you are suggesting with these paragraphs. If it helps reduce the strength of gangs (just like ending prohibition meant an end to illegal alcohol smuggling groups, and all of the deaths associated with that), then these substances will be distributed under a more controlled environment in which users can be screened. You also have a chance at better informing them of the risks if they have to purchase drugs through certain channels, just like tobacco has those warning labels.
Its probably also true that drug dealers want to get people addicted to their product. Which is precisely why you have to create a legal market. Analogous to alcohol, we now have a legal market and bars and so on...nobody tries to give you alcohol addiction or poisoning because its all run by legitimate, regulated businesses. I probably misunderstand your point but at the very least I feel like the alcohol analogy is still a pretty good parallel.
edit: now reading at the series of posts I feel like things were heavily misconstrued along the way between multiple people, or I'm just horribly confused. Either way I wanted to keep this post just as another supporting voice for legalization of drugs. I frankly don't see how the silk road is a positive in this discussion, its just another means of delivery, but it has no function as a system that could work against drug violence as far as I know. "maintaining the attitude of prohibition" is the most you can say, which is really insignificant and more of an emotional point than a really substantive one.
|
United Kingdom13774 Posts
It will be interesting to see whether the long-term effect of WA/CO legalized marijuana will be overall positive or negative. None of that justifies an internet black market for drug trafficking though.
|
Another case asking out loud for drug regulation imo.
On May 31 2015 16:04 Taf the Ghost wrote: Though nothing as bad as when Spain bombed itself. Check your facts out. That's blatantly false.
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On June 01 2015 00:12 GreenHorizons 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. 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'. Figured you'd chime in with the BCR comment. While I in no way support the laws you're referencing, those who broke the law and were punished within the letter of the law should not be surprised that this happened. Of course during the time you're referencing being punished within the letter of the law didn't always happen, but the general principle stands. The better way to achieve change is through the courts and changing the law itself - i.e. your Brown v Board. To bring this back to making this on topic, the way to change drug laws isn't to flaunt them and run criminal enterprises (as silk road did) its to change the legislature - like certain states are doing - to make these things legal.
This guy is hardly the type of person who is a victim of the 'war on drugs'. I also agree in principle that the 'war on drugs' is a waste of time for a host of reasons. But that isn't the issue here. This was a major player in the distribution of drugs (by means of facilitating drug-related transactions on silk road) while profiting from that. Regardless of the drug laws and law enforcement policies, if drugs are illegal and this kind of business is a crime (which is it) this guy is going to be target for law enforcement. This wasn't some dealer on the corner of a street, this was a significant player.
On the dangers of drugs point, at least for some drugs you can draw a pretty clear line that they pose a significant risk to users. I would be legitimately surprised if you were happy to support the legalization of heroine or crystal meth for instance. The solution isn't to legalize it and have the government regulate it; you must have barriers in place - beyond education - to prevent the average person falling victim to the drug. Of course at the same time relentless persecution of users/dealers isn't conducive to solving the problem either. It's a complicated issue, and an issue which is outside the scope of this thread.
While I also agree that corrupt law enforcement has a role to play in the drug problem, and that there are a host of other bad things that go on within the system, that doesn't absolve DPR of guilt nor justify his actions. All parties should be brought to account.
On June 01 2015 09:30 Caihead wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2015 00:12 GreenHorizons 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. 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'. The examples you gave aren't really parallels to the drug issue, in the case of racist laws and segregation, people publicly campaigned and performed open civil disobedience and willingly handed themselves over to authorities with the goal being to change the laws. Rosa Parks wasn't trying to profit off racial hatred and inequality, but rather to over turn it so that there wouldn't be anyone profiting from that legal situation. This guy clearly profited from illegal activity, did little to nothing to actually advocate change, actively evaded authorities and public discourse, and committed a bunch of other shady shit which are not defensible (obvious blackmailing, actively seeking ties to organized crime, actively trying to "get rid of problems" by hiring hitmen, etc). You say drug laws destroy millions of families, loads of illegal drugs themselves also destroy millions of families. The horrors of having a relative / friend / loved one dealing with the costs of drug withdrawal, addiction, and serious medical conditions, is at least equal if not worse, than the horrors of having that same person having to be in prison. Drugs can be recreational, safe, and serve a purpose, but that's OBVIOUSLY NOT what the majority of drug dealers (including cigarettes and alcohol distributors) want their product to be for. They WANT drugs to be addictive with huge profit margins, and marketed to vulnerable demographics, damn all the social and health consequences. Marijuana is one case out of literally hundreds of thousands of biological or chemical concoctions, most societies are obviously neither informed, equipped with the necessary tools, nor possess the level of material prestige or legal precedence to deal with legalizing drugs. A first time marijuana user probably doesn't have a clue what potential mix of chemicals he's really putting into his body nor the chemical and medical background to understand it, where as tobacco and alcohol are vastly better documented. This is a good post.
On June 01 2015 13:14 radscorpion9 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2015 09:30 Caihead wrote:On June 01 2015 00:12 GreenHorizons 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. 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'. You say drug laws destroy millions of families, loads of illegal drugs themselves also destroy millions of families. The horrors of having a relative / friend / loved one dealing with the costs of drug withdrawal, addiction, and serious medical conditions, is at least equal if not worse, than the horrors of having that same person having to be in prison. Drugs can be recreational, safe, and serve a purpose, but that's OBVIOUSLY NOT what the majority of drug dealers (including cigarettes and alcohol distributors) want their product to be for... I'm not sure your points really counter the suggestion of legalizing drugs, if that's what you are suggesting with these paragraphs. If it helps reduce the strength of gangs (just like ending prohibition meant an end to illegal alcohol smuggling groups, and all of the deaths associated with that), then these substances will be distributed under a more controlled environment in which users can be screened. You also have a chance at better informing them of the risks if they have to purchase drugs through certain channels, just like tobacco has those warning labels. Its probably also true that drug dealers want to get people addicted to their product. Which is precisely why you have to create a legal market. Analogous to alcohol, we now have a legal market and bars and so on...nobody tries to give you alcohol addiction or poisoning because its all run by legitimate, regulated businesses. I probably misunderstand your point but at the very least I feel like the alcohol analogy is still a pretty good parallel. edit: now reading at the series of posts I feel like things were heavily misconstrued along the way between multiple people, or I'm just horribly confused. Either way I wanted to keep this post just as another supporting voice for legalization of drugs. I frankly don't see how the silk road is a positive in this discussion, its just another means of delivery, but it has no function as a system that could work against drug violence as far as I know. "maintaining the attitude of prohibition" is the most you can say, which is really insignificant and more of an emotional point than a really substantive one. The fact that the tobacco industry is still a powerful industry should illustrate that 'informing people' doesn't always mean they're going to make good decisions about their long term health.
Legalizing highly addictive drugs is not analogous to alcohol. We're talking about substances several times more addictive than alcohol. The only thing you achieve in a legal market is some level of control over people OD'ing and ability for those people to access care when in that dire state. Legalization works well in a market that is so overrun with drug use that there is literally no alternative. Portugal is such an example. Drug use may have fallen there, but it's still high relative to other countries and the positives are a better ability to manage the health concerns of those addicted. There's no case study or evidence that in a country with lower drug use rates (or at least, lower hard drug use rates) that such a model would be effective.
|
On June 01 2015 16:10 Plexa wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2015 00:12 GreenHorizons 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. 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'. Figured you'd chime in with the BCR comment. While I in no way support the laws you're referencing, those who broke the law and were punished within the letter of the law should not be surprised that this happened. Of course during the time you're referencing being punished within the letter of the law didn't always happen, but the general principle stands. The better way to achieve change is through the courts and changing the law itself - i.e. your Brown v Board. To bring this back to making this on topic, the way to change drug laws isn't to flaunt them and run criminal enterprises (as silk road did) its to change the legislature - like certain states are doing - to make these things legal. This guy is hardly the type of person who is a victim of the 'war on drugs'. I also agree in principle that the 'war on drugs' is a waste of time for a host of reasons. But that isn't the issue here. This was a major player in the distribution of drugs (by means of facilitating drug-related transactions on silk road) while profiting from that. Regardless of the drug laws and law enforcement policies, if drugs are illegal and this kind of business is a crime (which is it) this guy is going to be target for law enforcement. This wasn't some dealer on the corner of a street, this was a significant player. On the dangers of drugs point, at least for some drugs you can draw a pretty clear line that they pose a significant risk to users. I would be legitimately surprised if you were happy to support the legalization of heroine or crystal meth for instance. The solution isn't to legalize it and have the government regulate it; you must have barriers in place - beyond education - to prevent the average person falling victim to the drug. Of course at the same time relentless persecution of users/dealers isn't conducive to solving the problem either. It's a complicated issue, and an issue which is outside the scope of this thread. While I also agree that corrupt law enforcement has a role to play in the drug problem, and that there are a host of other bad things that go on within the system, that doesn't absolve DPR of guilt nor justify his actions. All parties should be brought to account. Show nested quote +On June 01 2015 09:30 Caihead wrote:On June 01 2015 00:12 GreenHorizons 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. 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'. The examples you gave aren't really parallels to the drug issue, in the case of racist laws and segregation, people publicly campaigned and performed open civil disobedience and willingly handed themselves over to authorities with the goal being to change the laws. Rosa Parks wasn't trying to profit off racial hatred and inequality, but rather to over turn it so that there wouldn't be anyone profiting from that legal situation. This guy clearly profited from illegal activity, did little to nothing to actually advocate change, actively evaded authorities and public discourse, and committed a bunch of other shady shit which are not defensible (obvious blackmailing, actively seeking ties to organized crime, actively trying to "get rid of problems" by hiring hitmen, etc). You say drug laws destroy millions of families, loads of illegal drugs themselves also destroy millions of families. The horrors of having a relative / friend / loved one dealing with the costs of drug withdrawal, addiction, and serious medical conditions, is at least equal if not worse, than the horrors of having that same person having to be in prison. Drugs can be recreational, safe, and serve a purpose, but that's OBVIOUSLY NOT what the majority of drug dealers (including cigarettes and alcohol distributors) want their product to be for. They WANT drugs to be addictive with huge profit margins, and marketed to vulnerable demographics, damn all the social and health consequences. Marijuana is one case out of literally hundreds of thousands of biological or chemical concoctions, most societies are obviously neither informed, equipped with the necessary tools, nor possess the level of material prestige or legal precedence to deal with legalizing drugs. A first time marijuana user probably doesn't have a clue what potential mix of chemicals he's really putting into his body nor the chemical and medical background to understand it, where as tobacco and alcohol are vastly better documented. This is a good post. Show nested quote +On June 01 2015 13:14 radscorpion9 wrote:On June 01 2015 09:30 Caihead wrote:On June 01 2015 00:12 GreenHorizons 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. 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'. You say drug laws destroy millions of families, loads of illegal drugs themselves also destroy millions of families. The horrors of having a relative / friend / loved one dealing with the costs of drug withdrawal, addiction, and serious medical conditions, is at least equal if not worse, than the horrors of having that same person having to be in prison. Drugs can be recreational, safe, and serve a purpose, but that's OBVIOUSLY NOT what the majority of drug dealers (including cigarettes and alcohol distributors) want their product to be for... I'm not sure your points really counter the suggestion of legalizing drugs, if that's what you are suggesting with these paragraphs. If it helps reduce the strength of gangs (just like ending prohibition meant an end to illegal alcohol smuggling groups, and all of the deaths associated with that), then these substances will be distributed under a more controlled environment in which users can be screened. You also have a chance at better informing them of the risks if they have to purchase drugs through certain channels, just like tobacco has those warning labels. Its probably also true that drug dealers want to get people addicted to their product. Which is precisely why you have to create a legal market. Analogous to alcohol, we now have a legal market and bars and so on...nobody tries to give you alcohol addiction or poisoning because its all run by legitimate, regulated businesses. I probably misunderstand your point but at the very least I feel like the alcohol analogy is still a pretty good parallel. edit: now reading at the series of posts I feel like things were heavily misconstrued along the way between multiple people, or I'm just horribly confused. Either way I wanted to keep this post just as another supporting voice for legalization of drugs. I frankly don't see how the silk road is a positive in this discussion, its just another means of delivery, but it has no function as a system that could work against drug violence as far as I know. "maintaining the attitude of prohibition" is the most you can say, which is really insignificant and more of an emotional point than a really substantive one. The fact that the tobacco industry is still a powerful industry should illustrate that 'informing people' doesn't always mean they're going to make good decisions about their long term health. Legalizing highly addictive drugs is not analogous to alcohol. We're talking about substances several times more addictive than alcohol. The only thing you achieve in a legal market is some level of control over people OD'ing and ability for those people to access care when in that dire state. Legalization works well in a market that is so overrun with drug use that there is literally no alternative. Portugal is such an example. Drug use may have fallen there, but it's still high relative to other countries and the positives are a better ability to manage the health concerns of those addicted. There's no case study or evidence that in a country with lower drug use rates (or at least, lower hard drug use rates) that such a model would be effective.
As for the law part, people could just stop supporting dumb and/or draconian laws because it's the humane thing to do. Or they could make people drag it out through court and the streets because they don't see the inhumanity of their actions...I just think advocating the second one is overly accepting of the idea that the original position is a tenable one in the first place.
He sounds like a entrepreneur who came on hard times initiated by corrupt law enforcement (I've read mixed reports about the death threats). It's a waste of time and resources for people like him to be targeted by law enforcement (for drugs). Shouldn't have taken this long for us to realize our drug laws are dumb. People have been screaming from the rafters for decades. Using that the laws are still on the books is like justifying shooting a gun because it had bullets in it. Just because it's there doesn't mean we have to use it.
As for the dangers of drugs I don't think you're right at all. I don't know if I would say I would be 'happy to support the legalization' of heroine or meth... Mostly because they are already legal, so long as a pharmaceutical company made them (Oxycontin, Morphine, Desoxyn, etc...). Those kill more people than Heroin and are just as addictive if not more. Nowadays people are turning to heroin because the pharmaceutical stuff is too pricey, and what usually makes it dangerous is people cutting it with crap (go free market go!).
I'm not trying to absolve him from guilt, just saying being guilty of distributing drugs is only a crime when you don't have government approval, and you only go to prison if you are not well enough connected. It's a racket. Public safety has just been a cover, even if a lot of people fall for the propaganda.
I have no idea how you are measuring 'addictiveness' but pretty much any scientific study I've seen puts alcohol at basically the top.
Alcohol is much more likely to kill someone from withdrawals than heroin. So are benzos (both legally available). That sounds addictive enough to make an 'addiction risk' argument sound silly on it's face.
As for the example of Portugal, we don't need statistics or case studies (could only get them by a country trying it without them) it's common sense to anyone not wrapped up in the propaganda of the drug war. What's the worst that could happen really? We realize we have to criminalize it again... It's not like we would be losing precious progress.
|
United Kingdom35817 Posts
I don't get this "it's a deterrence sentence"
the ship has very much sailed on darknet markets, they're out there and they will continue to be out there. And they have various benefits over buying off the street - one of the main ones (from a safety perspective) is that you are far more likely to get good product, the one you ordered, as sellers have a reputation to maintain.
What's the worst that could happen really? We realize we have to criminalize it again... It's not like we would be losing precious progress. Bolded made me chuckle especially.
|
On June 01 2015 16:10 Plexa wrote: The fact that the tobacco industry is still a powerful industry should illustrate that 'informing people' doesn't always mean they're going to make good decisions about their long term health.
Note that tobacco use has been declining according to this, and in my opinion there is still room for more anti-smoking advertising.
On June 01 2015 13:14 radscorpion9 wrote: Its probably also true that drug dealers want to get people addicted to their product. Which is precisely why you have to create a legal market. Analogous to alcohol, we now have a legal market and bars and so on...nobody tries to give you alcohol addiction or poisoning because its all run by legitimate, regulated businesses.
In my belief this is what the tobacco industry does, selling addictions. Cigarettes are usually marketed as "fashion accessories" nowadays, and rarely for what they actually provide (like taste, or as "this nicotine fix is better than the other ones" for example). I'd say this specifically is because what a cigarette provides is worthless to anyone who isn't addicted yet, and maybe the declining rate of use shown above is related to the public becoming aware of this.
As for Ross Ulbricht, life sentence *without parole* seems very draconian for charges that, according to "ggrrg"'s post in the first page, are all about drugs and nothing about attempted murder or ordering a murder. edit: funny enough I was looking up one of his charges on this wiki page, and he's already there among drug lords of the world, when he likely hasn't sold any drug himself.
|
our drug laws are fucked, but this guy was a grade a boner. he was claiming the super fucking privilidged point that his service made drug use safer, eliminated crime, and no one od'ed. then add in that he, ya know, was looking to have people hit.
no remorse for this guy.
|
|
|
|