|
Silk Road was the biggest marketplace for selling illegal drugs on the dark web from 2011-2013. It was operated behind a Tor hidden service that provides anonymity to buyers, sellers and the server operators. Transactions were done with bitcoin and the drugs were delivered via mail. In total, goods worth 1.2 billion dollars were sold on Silk Road.
In 2013, the FBI shut down the server and arrested Ross William Ulbricht for being the site's founder with the pseudonym "Dread Pirate Roberts". Later in the year, Silk Road 2.0 was created by affiliates and was eventually also shut down.
Ulbricht was indicted on charges of money laundering, computer hacking and the conspiracy to traffic narcotics. He is now sentenced to a life in prison.
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/may/29/silk-road-ross-ulbricht-sentenced
|
Rumour has it that you could buy killings there as well. Along with e.g. fake identities etc.
|
yeah he was caught in a law enforcement sting trying to order the murders of some old colleagues that threatened the service. lot of people think that the punishment is too severe but seems to me he got what was coming to him
|
On May 31 2015 00:25 Catch]22 wrote: Rumour has it that you could buy killings there as well. Along with e.g. fake identities etc.
Don't think that this was the case for Silk Road? Tor yeah, but I'm not so sure about SR
|
He was a drug dealer, had drugs at his home and attented to kill someone with a hitman so I think he deserves the life sentence.
|
Probably the dodgiest case I've ever read about tbh, one side of law enforcement engaging in something that was so close to entrapment hes now in prison, the other engaging in some interesting illegal wiretappings almost certainly with the aid of the nsa.
200 years in prison aught to sort out these folks who might be thinking about starting a marketplace to get drugs. Pretty blatant miscarriage of justice tbph.
|
|
Philadelphia, PA10406 Posts
|
Silk Road got busted because it became too popular. It was even in the normal news when people involved were still anonymous.
|
On May 31 2015 00:25 Catch]22 wrote: Rumour has it that you could buy killings there as well. Along with e.g. fake identities etc. http://www.wired.com/2015/02/read-transcript-silk-roads-boss-ordering-5-assassinations
Just because the prosecution couldn't muster the evidence to charge him for assassinations doesn't mean he isn't a scumbag, nobody in their right mind gets into casual conversations of planning hits on people as a joke.
|
Here are the charges for which he was found guilty:
1. distributing or aiding and abetting the distribution of narcotics 2. distributing narcotics or aiding and abetting distribution over the Internet 3. conspiracy to violate narcotics laws 4. conspiracy to run a "continuing criminal enterprise" 5. conspiracy charges for computer hacking 6. distributing false identification 7. money laundering
+ Show Spoiler [source] +
I really wonder what exactly is the difference between the first 3 charges and even more so, how is the possible to commit any one of them without commiting another one at the same time. Honestly, it feels like he was sentenced 3 times for the same thing... The fourth charge requires a specific set of properties to be true at the same time. Personally, I have a hard time imagining how an online marketplace, albeit a drug market, can satisfy the requirements for such a charge without stretching the definition of the target of this law. Maybe it did though, who knows... Number 5 is scetchy to say the least. Charge 6 seems to be technically correct. However, his guilt here seems to be discretionary considering that he did not personally create or sell false identification, but instead offered a platform for them to be sold. Well, 7 is a given when you profit from an illegal activity.
I do not know anywhere near enough about the case to be able to comment on all the claims online about fabricated claims, entrapment etc. However, even under the assumption that he was guilty of everything, his sentence seems to go way beyond any reason.
|
On May 31 2015 04:30 ggrrg wrote: I do not know anywhere near enough about the case to be able to comment on all the claims online about fabricated claims, entrapment etc. However, even under the assumption that he was guilty of everything, his sentence seems to go way beyond any reason.
Obviously the case is a landmark one and the prosecution wanted to set an example to deter copycats and similar enterprises. I agree that the sentencing is way above the minimal (in fact the prosecution specifically asked for this in a letter to the judge), but also consider that this is one of the first and most prominent cases that showed the criminal enterprise world the potential of dealing anonymously on the internet. Him being an opportunist and capitalizing on a previously untapped market probably helped propelled the same methodologies in the "industry" forward dramatically, which make it much more difficult for law enforcement and society to keep track of the same sort of illegal activities. And the taxpayers all get to foot the bills and consequences of that.
|
On May 31 2015 01:07 PassiveAce wrote: lot of people think that the punishment is too severe but seems to me he got what was coming to him
yes its quite amazing. This guy was born into privilege and used his privilege to make the world worse. All in what he thought was noble intent of course, as you can see from his linkedin profile he wanted to sell drugs to free people from government oppression, lol.
https://www.linkedin.com/in/rossulbricht
His punishment is a 1000x more just than the millions of blacks put in jail, yet who cares about them?
|
On May 31 2015 05:09 AndreWiles wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2015 01:07 PassiveAce wrote: lot of people think that the punishment is too severe but seems to me he got what was coming to him yes its quite amazing. This guy was born into privilege and used his privilege to make the world worse. All in what he thought was noble intent of course, as you can see from his linkedin profile he wanted to sell drugs to free people from government oppression, lol. https://www.linkedin.com/in/rossulbrichtHis punishment is a 1000x more just than the millions of blacks put in jail, yet who cares about them?
C'mon. Don't make this about 'race' and 'privilege'.
|
On May 31 2015 05:09 AndreWiles wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2015 01:07 PassiveAce wrote: lot of people think that the punishment is too severe but seems to me he got what was coming to him yes its quite amazing. This guy was born into privilege and used his privilege to make the world worse. All in what he thought was noble intent of course, as you can see from his linkedin profile he wanted to sell drugs to free people from government oppression, lol. https://www.linkedin.com/in/rossulbrichtHis punishment is a 1000x more just than the millions of blacks put in jail, yet who cares about them?
He didn't make the world worse buddy, I highly disagree with that statement, I'm just going to ignore the rest of your nonsense that you wrote too.
|
On May 31 2015 08:00 PanN wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2015 05:09 AndreWiles wrote:On May 31 2015 01:07 PassiveAce wrote: lot of people think that the punishment is too severe but seems to me he got what was coming to him yes its quite amazing. This guy was born into privilege and used his privilege to make the world worse. All in what he thought was noble intent of course, as you can see from his linkedin profile he wanted to sell drugs to free people from government oppression, lol. https://www.linkedin.com/in/rossulbrichtHis punishment is a 1000x more just than the millions of blacks put in jail, yet who cares about them? He didn't make the world worse buddy, I highly disagree with that statement, I'm just going to ignore the rest of your nonsense that you wrote too. imo conspiring to kill people is kind of a bad thing to do but maybe thats just me i dunno http://www.wired.com/2015/02/read-transcript-silk-roads-boss-ordering-5-assassinations
|
On May 31 2015 08:00 PanN wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2015 05:09 AndreWiles wrote:On May 31 2015 01:07 PassiveAce wrote: lot of people think that the punishment is too severe but seems to me he got what was coming to him yes its quite amazing. This guy was born into privilege and used his privilege to make the world worse. All in what he thought was noble intent of course, as you can see from his linkedin profile he wanted to sell drugs to free people from government oppression, lol. https://www.linkedin.com/in/rossulbrichtHis punishment is a 1000x more just than the millions of blacks put in jail, yet who cares about them? He didn't make the world worse buddy, I highly disagree with that statement, I'm just going to ignore the rest of your nonsense that you wrote too.
Comparing what he did, to what the banks were guilty of doing with FOREX or HSBC, the punishment seems really extreme. Seems more like retribution for whoever he was cutting out of the deal.
|
United States15275 Posts
On May 31 2015 08:14 PassiveAce wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2015 08:00 PanN wrote:On May 31 2015 05:09 AndreWiles wrote:On May 31 2015 01:07 PassiveAce wrote: lot of people think that the punishment is too severe but seems to me he got what was coming to him yes its quite amazing. This guy was born into privilege and used his privilege to make the world worse. All in what he thought was noble intent of course, as you can see from his linkedin profile he wanted to sell drugs to free people from government oppression, lol. https://www.linkedin.com/in/rossulbrichtHis punishment is a 1000x more just than the millions of blacks put in jail, yet who cares about them? He didn't make the world worse buddy, I highly disagree with that statement, I'm just going to ignore the rest of your nonsense that you wrote too. imo conspiring to kill people is kind of a bad thing to do but maybe thats just me i dunno http://www.wired.com/2015/02/read-transcript-silk-roads-boss-ordering-5-assassinations
No worse than all the "collateral damage" we've seen in Yemen from drone strikes.
I find the concept of the Silk Road far more appealing than seeing thousands die from Fentanyl-laced heroin where there's no control over distribution or customer knowledge.
|
Is your point that because the US government gets away with murder Ulbricht should be allowed to get away with murder too?
|
United States15275 Posts
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. The government gets away with it because we think about in abstract terms, but the "government" is not responsible. A specific set of people following through the chain of command are responsible and because that's not grappled with, any abuse of power is reluctantly accepted and blamed on the unwieldy nature of bureaucracy.
Ordering hits is bad in itself, but it seems rather silly to focus on that as if it should be the deciding factor in whether he's an empathetic figure or not. The true crux in this case, as always, is structured organization and distribution of illegal drugs not overseen by a "recognized" economic entity.
|
On May 31 2015 01:07 PassiveAce wrote: yeah he was caught in a law enforcement sting trying to order the murders of some old colleagues that threatened the service. lot of people think that the punishment is too severe but seems to me he got what was coming to him The government didn't even charge him with the hitman/murder stuff. I think those allegations were only used to deny him bail.
On May 31 2015 01:07 Deleuze wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2015 00:25 Catch]22 wrote: Rumour has it that you could buy killings there as well. Along with e.g. fake identities etc. Don't think that this was the case for Silk Road? Tor yeah, but I'm not so sure about SR Yeah people seem to confuse the Silk Road trial with the entire deep web. There are hitmen out there, but from everything I've read, SR wasn't a market for them.
On May 31 2015 05:09 AndreWiles wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2015 01:07 PassiveAce wrote: lot of people think that the punishment is too severe but seems to me he got what was coming to him yes its quite amazing. This guy was born into privilege and used his privilege to make the world worse. All in what he thought was noble intent of course, as you can see from his linkedin profile he wanted to sell drugs to free people from government oppression, lol. https://www.linkedin.com/in/rossulbrichtHis punishment is a 1000x more just than the millions of blacks put in jail, yet who cares about them? The last part is a real non sequitur... People who oppose the war on drugs generally don't like industrial incarceration for nonviolent, victimless drug offenses. There's a negative reaction to Ulbricht's case not only because of the fishy shit the government did, but because of the scapegoating involved in doing all this to take down a white collar tech guy when prohibition has created a war with Mexican drug cartels. Reminds me of blaming Kim Dotcom for internet piracy.
+ Show Spoiler +
It's interesting to me that the friends/family of OD victims were at the trial. I'm not convinced that blame is going in the right direction there... For instance, if someone bought a knife on Amazon and stabbed their friend to death with it, you wouldn't show up at the trial of Jeff Bezos and ask him how he could be so heartless. People die in alcohol related deaths regularly, but people don't seem to blame Johnny Walker or the liquor store or the government for legalizing alcohol.
|
your right i think hes charged in maryland for the hitman stuff. court date for that charge isnt for a while.
still hard to feel bad for the guy after you read those transcripts.
yeah bringing in the families of od victims seems really silly. cant blame other people for your risky behavior.
|
On May 31 2015 08:31 CosmicSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
The charges seem pretty dubious with the exception of money laundering.
If someone were to place illegal drugs or false IDs on Ebay and it didn't get caught and stopped by their systems, would the CEO of Ebay have to go to jail? If someone were to sneak some child porn images into Google Images, would the CEO of Google have to go to jail for distribution of child pornography? If people used PMs on TeamLiquid to sell illicit drugs, would the owners of TL have to go to jail?
Okay, I admit that Ebay, Google, and TL take steps to prevent illegal action while the Silk Road encourages it, but the law can sometimes be a very blunt force with little regard for nuance. Setting a case history such as this one can have negative consequences of holding website providers responsible for the actions of their users.
Bringing in families of OD victims for testimony seems to be especially poor. People don't get onto SilkRoad by accident. If not there, then these OD victims would have gotten their drugs from somewhere... quite likely somewhere more dangerous.
Now, I do believe the guy should go to jail for a long time for his attempted hits, which he still hasn't been tried for. He has shown a clear lack of respect for human life and I don't want people like that in the general populace. But he's getting punished for the wrong crimes right now and that concerns me.
|
United States15275 Posts
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.
Well it doesn't. The framing of the conversation itself derails what's actually at stake. Whether he deserves a 200-year sentence is irrelevant: he's not going to live to see half of it. It sets a precedence for other people who will be in his position.
Frankly I don't care how harshly Ulbricht is punished or not. I care whether the schema of drug distribution he presented with the Silk Road will be expanded or discarded. If it's the latter, then it puts a lot more people at risk. We don't need another 2005-2006 outbreak because the illegal drug trade degraded into the Wild West frontier again.
|
You can't set up a criminal enterprise just because you don't believe in drug laws. What he did was only innovative in the sense that identities were protected by TOR, it's not like Silk Road was actually the answer to getting drugs safely to market.
Having said that I'm not sure life in prison is necessarily the right decision for what seems to be a white collar crime.
|
Landmark rulings like this are so silly, but what are you gonna do =/
If I were in the situation of being extorted $700,000 for the identities of colleagues in a business which is explicitly run on anonymity, I would probably be on the fence about forking over a fat sum or having some guy die, especially when being contacted by people who have the [supposed] capability of taking him/myself out. But hey, I'm just some guy.
gg bro, thanks for giving our country what we want (DURGS), hopefully your dudes can smuggle some gear into your cell once in a while.
Also, who the fuck would name a blackmail file "blackmail.txt" lol.
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
It's concerning the number of sympathizers DPR has in this thread.
|
On May 31 2015 06:15 ninazerg wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2015 05:09 AndreWiles wrote:On May 31 2015 01:07 PassiveAce wrote: lot of people think that the punishment is too severe but seems to me he got what was coming to him yes its quite amazing. This guy was born into privilege and used his privilege to make the world worse. All in what he thought was noble intent of course, as you can see from his linkedin profile he wanted to sell drugs to free people from government oppression, lol. https://www.linkedin.com/in/rossulbrichtHis punishment is a 1000x more just than the millions of blacks put in jail, yet who cares about them? C'mon. Don't make this about 'race' and 'privilege'.
I just think it's amazing that there is more outrage shown over this than other things. For what its worth i think his sentence is too long as well, but i generally think the 'justice' system is horrible in its punishment and exploitive aspect rather than trying to restore peoples lives, especially in America.
i'll make it about the war on drugs. If we simply decriminalized drugs dangerous people like this would never be able to make tons of money . Not only that but people worse than this guy like the bloodthirsty warlords in Afghanistan would go broke and lose all their power if we decriminalized heroin.
|
i'd give him, to IS. i don't really care about the legal precedence or whatever legal shit people are so concerned about because the laws are rigged, broken; i'd even go as far as to call them clientelistic.
|
I expect this is largely agenda based sentencing, that it is extra harsh punishment because of the nature of what he did, how he "went outside the system".
I have not done research on the details of what he has done, but this list:
+ Show Spoiler + 1. distributing or aiding and abetting the distribution of narcotics 2. distributing narcotics or aiding and abetting distribution over the Internet 3. conspiracy to violate narcotics laws 4. conspiracy to run a "continuing criminal enterprise" 5. conspiracy charges for computer hacking 6. distributing false identification 7. money laundering
does not contain things that I think someone should spend life in prison for.
HOWEVER, I don't really care because the guy sounds like a worthless sack of shit who tried to (or did) get people killed
|
Frankly of all the people he "killed" only the first was one I'd have any sympathy for at all. The rest were people scamming insane amounts of money and holding the identities of silk roads clientele hostage. I wouldn't have too much sympathy for someone being shot if they were trying to extort the hells angels, its just fucking stupid.
|
On May 31 2015 12:41 travis wrote:I expect this is largely agenda based sentencing, that it is extra harsh punishment because of the nature of what he did, how he "went outside the system". I have not done research on the details of what he has done, but this list: + Show Spoiler + 1. distributing or aiding and abetting the distribution of narcotics 2. distributing narcotics or aiding and abetting distribution over the Internet 3. conspiracy to violate narcotics laws 4. conspiracy to run a "continuing criminal enterprise" 5. conspiracy charges for computer hacking 6. distributing false identification 7. money laundering
does not contain things that I think someone should spend life in prison for. HOWEVER, I don't really care because the guy sounds like a worthless sack of shit who tried to (or did) get people killed
Basically this, except he's like the least responsible person in the chain of cultivation to consumption, and the only thing that makes the drug/money stuff criminal is ridiculously dumb and counterproductive laws.
The best evidence is how consumption and distribution numbers were practically unaffected by the creation or destruction of the network. A network that is essentially already run by competing institutions (HSBC to name one) to which this seems like a clear retaliation for stepping on toes and cutting people out.
I don't know the details about the killing of people, but if the guy was a privileged fuck like people make him sound it wouldn't surprise me he would want to kill people for convenience and not just because they were a legitimate threat.
Illicit drugs are nothing compared to all the deadly shit bought and sold everyday in the US. And if you are buying and selling stuff, you need a market. So I really couldn't care less about that.
I don't know the details about the killing people part but go ahead and lock em up if he's guilty of that stuff, but for drugs and money, fine him like you do the fat cats or throw them all in prison (although I think prison for drugs is stupid), but locking him up for life while giving institutions free reign to do the same shit is just ridiculous.
|
United Kingdom20158 Posts
On May 31 2015 03:53 helpman176 wrote: Silk Road got busted because it became too popular. It was even in the normal news when people involved were still anonymous.
I heard of it more than a few times without looking, for an "underground" drug dealing/exchange network that's not a very good thing
|
On May 31 2015 08:50 RenSC2 wrote:
Now, I do believe the guy should go to jail for a long time for his attempted hits, which he still hasn't been tried for. He has shown a clear lack of respect for human life and I don't want people like that in the general populace. But he's getting punished for the wrong crimes right now and that concerns me.
to be fair the people he was trying to kill were also killers/scammers/blackmailers the same as him (from what i read). if you're a criminal and another criminal threatens to kill you or blackmail you then its pretty much standard to want to kill them too....
i only read half of it but it was basically "this guy is a professional scammer and is trying to blackmail me/get me in jail/fuck up my crime business so i try to find and kill him"
saying he "ordered the execution of people" is a bit sensationalist
yeah ok so i finished reading it:
his (silk road's) business was facilitating the sale of drugs. a group of scammers emerged that scammed users on the network for many $100,000s. one of the scammers attempted to blackmail the owner of silk road. the owner of silk road coincidentally was contacted by a super drug lord who said he could kill these (3) people for him and they went ahead.
later on the police were unable to find any record of the people who were allegedly killed and there is no further mention of who this super drug lord might be. article also mentions that (at least 1 of) the murders was faked by undercover agents
it also turned out that the agents working undercover were ALSO scammers/criminals. it gets confusing now but it sounds like the people scamming silk road were the actual undercover cops who were supposed to be investigating it. some of these cops were outed after the investigation
so basically he got scammed by undercover agents, entrapped and framed for fake murders, then a few months later the undercover agents got caught by other cops (coz one of them went on a spending spree)
so i guess thats why he's only charged for certain things.
BASICALLY some undercover cops blackmailed him, then offered to kill these people for him, then took a shitload of money from him and kept it, then arrested him, then got caught and arrested themselves
other stuff one of the cops done: + became part of a bitcoin company and then robbed one of the clients by using his power to freeze the account and take the money under pretence of law enforcement + had one of his embezelling accounts frozen so tried to use his police badge to get the company to release it then when they reported him he tricked his fellow officers into shutting down the company and taking their money
apparently a lot of the evidence/happenings were not able to be presented in court in the silk road trial because they came from a different department than the one locally handling the case . so all this shit about him getting framed, blackmailed and fucked around by the criminal cops had to be dropped.
so it does look like he was legit life imprisoned for facilitating drug transfers *shrug*
|
United Kingdom13774 Posts
Higher profile criminals have been imprisoned for tax evasion. Using lesser felonies to obtain a life sentence is not uncommon for those who committed pretty significant crimes and who are guilty of significantly more than can be proved in court.
In my eyes, good riddance. His works blatantly support organized crime in that they allow criminal organizations to market drugs.
|
On May 31 2015 13:34 FFGenerations wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2015 08:50 RenSC2 wrote:
Now, I do believe the guy should go to jail for a long time for his attempted hits, which he still hasn't been tried for. He has shown a clear lack of respect for human life and I don't want people like that in the general populace. But he's getting punished for the wrong crimes right now and that concerns me. to be fair the people he was trying to kill were also killers/scammers/blackmailers the same as him (from what i read). if you're a criminal and another criminal threatens to kill you or blackmail you then its pretty much standard to want to kill them too.... i only read half of it but it was basically "this guy is a professional scammer and is trying to blackmail me/get me in jail/fuck up my crime business so i try to find and kill him" saying he "ordered the execution of people" is a bit sensationalist yeah ok so i finished reading it: his (silk road's) business was facilitating the sale of drugs. a group of scammers emerged that scammed users on the network for many $100,000s. one of the scammers attempted to blackmail the owner of silk road. the owner of silk road coincidentally was contacted by a super drug lord who said he could kill these (3) people for him and they went ahead. later on the police were unable to find any record of the people who were allegedly killed and there is no further mention of who this super drug lord might be. article also mentions that (at least 1 of) the murders was faked by undercover agents it also turned out that the agents working undercover were ALSO scammers/criminals. it gets confusing now but it sounds like the people scamming silk road were the actual undercover cops who were supposed to be investigating it. some of these cops were outed after the investigation so basically he got scammed by undercover agents, entrapped and framed for fake murders, then a few months later the undercover agents got caught by other cops (coz one of them went on a spending spree) so i guess thats why he's only charged for certain things. BASICALLY some undercover cops blackmailed him, then offered to kill these people for him, then took a shitload of money from him and kept it, then arrested him, then got caught and arrested themselves other stuff one of the cops done: + became part of a bitcoin company and then robbed one of the clients by using his power to freeze the account and take the money under pretence of law enforcement + had one of his embezelling accounts frozen so tried to use his police badge to get the company to release it then when they reported him he tricked his fellow officers into shutting down the company and taking their money apparently a lot of the evidence/happenings were not able to be presented in court in the silk road trial because they came from a different department than the one locally handling the case . so all this shit about him getting framed, blackmailed and fucked around by the criminal cops had to be dropped. so it does look like he was legit life imprisoned for facilitating drug transfers *shrug*
I think you got most of it. There's also the likely issue that they tracked down the servers by illegal means. Have to give the prosecutors credit, though. This was one mess of a case because of at least 1 dirty cop and a lot of tainted information. They managed to keep that most segmented off, which is why the case should survive appeal. A lot of other prosecutors would have screwed that up and Ross would eventually get the verdict tossed.
There's also the semi-hilarious aspect that undercover agents were involved from pretty much Day 1. But that's not as uncommon in this situations as people think. Though nothing as bad as when Spain bombed itself.
|
Happy about this, just two comments -
1) He's an idiot for getting caught. As an admin for this kind of website you keep a low profile, also on the website. 2) I find it hilarious what US police can do.. they basically are criminals themselves. All those stories about this case, DEA, ATF, FBI, CIA, ... :S
|
On May 31 2015 11:36 Plexa wrote: It's concerning the number of sympathizers DPR has in this thread. That's what I was thinking too. I know nothing about Silk Road or its founder, but from the comments it sounds like the evil US government caught some kind of freedom fighter.
|
I thought the sentence was too much, then I read this on Slashdot
Yes sentencing should be consistent which is why we have sentencing guidelines, and this judge followed them. He was convicted of running a continuing criminal enterprise which has a mandatory minimum sentence of 20 years. And it gets worse when you add up the offense levels in the guidelines for his crimes: It was demonstrated that people who took drugs purchased on Silk Road have died from that drug use, which give him a base offense level of 38. The continuing criminal enterprise offense adds 4 points, and since he played an Aggravated Role as the ring leader that adds another 4 points, bringing him to 46 points. The sentencing table for someone with no prior convictions and an offense level of 43 or more is a life sentence, period, and that is before talking about the other five charges he was convicted of! As a judge you would have to present a very strong argument as to why someone with that high of an offense level should get less than life.
The reason he got such a harsh sentence is because our drug laws are so harsh, not because the judge was harsh. Prosecutors have huge flexibility in what they charge people with, and in this case they threw the book at him.
This made a lot more sense, and seems like a reasonable explanation.
|
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.
|
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.
|
|
|
|