Silk Road, online black market raided by FBI

[-p.tiddy-]

http://static4.businessinsider.com/image/5140896eeab8eaa24f000008-1200/then-youre-greeted-by-the-main-homepage-lets-browse-the-psychedelics.jpg

http://nation.time.com/2013/10/04/a-simple-guide-to-silk-road-the-online-black-market-raided-by-the-fbi/

pretty amazing story

TL;DR:

29 year old creates online black market via underground web created by government that hides your identy. Site sells everything illegal you can think of (drugs, guns, fake documents, even contract murder) and makes over $1 billion in just 2 years time. The guy ends up on FBI's 10 Most Wanted List. Gets paranoid, tries to cover his tracks by killing others, gets caught.

it's crazy that all this happened within just 2 years...


http://dollarvigilante.com/sites/default/files/images/RossWilliamUlbricht.jpg

^^^ Ross Ulbricht, the site's creator, online went by the name "Dread Pirate Roberts"

He actually grew up in Texas and went to college in Dallas

just some random 29 year old web geek that within 2 years got Pablo Escobar status in the drug world

crazy

[TheReal Kendall]

I've never heard of this site.

I'm surprised it lasted so long

[branslowski]

Wtf!?? Yoo, is the FBI going after those who frequently purchase from this site or no? They're only after Dread right?

[DuMa]

Deep Web always intriguing. Its funny how the Governments and most criminal activity are all closely interacted with each other on the web. people would say theres no difference between the criminals and the governments.

[RedBlackAttack]

Wait a minute... Is that $2.32 for 100 valium? That is insane. You could make thousands and thousands of dollars just piecing those things out for $2-$3 each on any college campus in America.

[jazz873]

Wait a minute... Is that $2.32 for 100 valium? That is insane. You could make thousands and thousands of dollars just piecing those things out for $2-$3 each on any college campus in America.
Thats 2.32 bitcoins for 100 valium. So that is like $230

[CelticBaller]

Man why I just found out about this site now, why not earlier :(

[L.Kizzle]

There was a good thread on the underground internet about a year or two ago. Anyone remember, I tried searching for it?

[RedBlackAttack]

Thats 2.32 bitcoins for 100 valium. So that is like $230
Ok, that makes more sense. That's probably about street value... Maybe a little cheaper depending on where you're from.

[Jameerthefear]

There was a good thread on the underground internet about a year or two ago. Anyone remember, I tried searching for it?
i can't find it either

[9erempiree]

Why is the guy in trouble for creating a marketplace for this stuff?

Shouldn't the feds go after the people selling?

[KeylessEntry]

How the hell do you pay for a cup of coffee, if 1 bit coin is 127$

Bitcoins can be broken into fractions, for a cup of coffee you would pay like .01 bitcoin.

[bdreason]

What I don't get is if it's completely anonymous, how do you actually make the sell? At some point there has to be an exchange of addresses or something.

[bdreason]

And that Ketamine seems way overpriced. We used to just go to Mexico and get prescriptions from 'pharmacists' there for really cheap.


PS- don't do special K. Probably the worst high I've ever had.

[MavsSuperFan]

Is this guy that tried to hire assassins, but was talking to an FBI agent?

[kNicKz]

Why is the guy in trouble for creating a marketplace for this stuff?

Shouldn't the feds go after the people selling?

He's in deeper shit because he put out a ****ing hit on someone and hired assassins to kill them

[KevinNYC]

Why is the guy in trouble for creating a marketplace for this stuff?

Shouldn't the feds go after the people selling?

Hey, I just flew my plane to an airstrip in Columbia and went to a diner for a big plate of arepas and flew back to the US. I didn't put nothing on the plane, I just really like arepas and sancocho, you ever have sancoho, it's this really good soup.

Did you take a look at the first image in this thread, that wasn't some users misusing his site. That was the purpose of his site. He was making money from the sale of drugs.

[KeylessEntry]

I'm not a huge fan of how that works.


ok?? nobody is forcing you to use bitcoins.

[KevinNYC]

I heard speculation that the Anonymous LulzSec guy they arrested in NYC helped the FBI with this case. He has not been sentenced yet. The four other LulzSec guys he turned in have been. Apparently the indictment refers to Agent #1 without giving a name. People think the reason he is not in jail is he is working with the FBI. Same agent who busted him took down Dread Pirate Roberts.

[macmac]

http://static4.businessinsider.com/image/5140896eeab8eaa24f000008-1200/then-youre-greeted-by-the-main-homepage-lets-browse-the-psychedelics.jpg

http://nation.time.com/2013/10/04/a-simple-guide-to-silk-road-the-online-black-market-raided-by-the-fbi/

pretty amazing story

TL;DR:

29 year old creates online black market via underground web created by government that hides your identy. Site sells everything illegal you can think of (drugs, guns, fake documents, even contract murder) and makes over $1 billion in just 2 years time. The guy ends up on FBI's 10 Most Wanted List. Gets paranoid, tries to cover his tracks by killing others, gets caught.

it's crazy that all this happened within just 2 years...


http://dollarvigilante.com/sites/default/files/images/RossWilliamUlbricht.jpg

^^^ Ross Ulbricht, the site's creator, online went by the name "Dread Pirate Roberts"

He actually grew up in Texas and went to college in Dallas

just some random 29 year old web geek that within 2 years got Pablo Escobar status in the drug world

crazy


Just to clarify, there was over 1.2 billion USD in total transactions on the website. neither him nor the site made that much. Double fact check

[blablabla]

Wtf!?? Yoo, is the FBI going after those who frequently purchase from this site or no? They're only after Dread right?
you're fked homie

[solar.hands]

There was a good thread on the underground internet about a year or two ago. Anyone remember, I tried searching for it?


i think it was deleted, they made a second one and it was deleted too.

i think the first thread was "school me on the underground internet" and was made by meticode.

[sick_brah07]

Yeah jeff deleted those threads

The first one was what got me looking into TOR and I found out about Silk Road like that .... I know a guy who was getting tons from there i know for fact the shit was crazy good lol :lol

[Nastradamus]

The movie will be sweet.

[OhNoTimNoSho]

Just to clarify, there was over 1.2 billion USD in total transactions on the website. neither him nor the site made that much. Double fact check
They said he made like 80 mil.

[macmac]

:lol


it works just like any other currency. do you not like Euros either?




$80 million isn't that much? K. and 1.2 billion is a lot considering thats from 1 million transactions.

I didn't say he didn't make that much. I said he didn't make the 1 billion OP claimed. Obviously he made good money, but it's still a big difference, especially if I'm gonna tell the story to others.

[MadeFromDust]

It's sickos like ewe ISHiots that are indirectly responsible for all the slaughtered Mexicans in the last few years, including women and children. I hope ewe think about that just before your next high, azzh0l10s :rolleyes:

[KeylessEntry]

It's sickos like ewe ISHiots that are indirectly responsible for all the slaughtered Mexicans in the last few years, including women and children. I hope ewe think about that just before your next high, azzh0l10s :rolleyes:

Its sickos in govt that refuse to end the futile "war on drugs" that are indirectly responsible for all the slaughtered mexicans.

[-p.tiddy-]

I didn't say he didn't make that much. I said he didn't make the 1 billion OP claimed. Obviously he made good money, but it's still a big difference, especially if I'm gonna tell the story to others.
You're right that was misleading

Site did over $1 billion in transactions, creator of site made $80 mill

[-p.tiddy-]

Its sickos in govt that refuse to end the futile "war on drugs" that are indirectly responsible for all the slaughtered mexicans.
I would rather drug dealers be forced to slaughter each other than be able to sell legally like tobacco companies...

Want to make millions dealing drugs? Good luck seeing any decent form of retirement.

[Balla_Status]

IS that the dude from LOST?

[KeylessEntry]

I would rather drug dealers be forced to slaughter each other than be able to sell legally like tobacco companies...

Want to make millions dealing drugs? Good luck seeing any decent form of retirement.

Yeah, thats exactly what would happen. :rolleyes:

It would be just like how all the gangsters in Chicago started legally selling alcohol after the prohibition ended.

[-p.tiddy-]

Yeah, thats exactly what would happen. :rolleyes:

It would be just like how all the gangsters in Chicago started legally selling alcohol after the prohibition ended.
That IS what's happening

Currently drug dealers either end up dead or in jail...and I like it that way

Mexico is a war zone of drug dealers killing each other? IMO that is the way they should have to live if they want to sell that shit. Not like the tobacco companies who are making billions legally by killing people.

[Balla_Status]

Well, to be fair, those people are choosing to kill themselves.

[BRabbiT]

The movie will be sweet.



:lol

[HarryCallahan]

FVCK! Now where am I gonna buy my kiddie porn?

[dunksby]

It's a huge blow to me actually. Can't get my head around it.

[niko]

So people were buying drugs online via a website? Yeah, not like anyone could track that or anything.

[fiddy]

FVCK! Now where am I gonna buy my kiddie porn?
I remember premium porn passes were sold there, but cp was a no no.

[CeltsGarlic]

So people were buying drugs online via a website? Yeah, not like anyone could track that or anything.

Its not amazon or something like that bro :lol
give it a read.

[-p.tiddy-]

So people were buying drugs online via a website? Yeah, not like anyone could track that or anything.
No one could track it...it was on the underground web

The creator of the site was on the FBIs 10 Most Wanted list...they couldn't find him, and was jt at home, running his web site.

[NuggetsFan]

I actually think I made a thread on the deep web awhile back on ISH. My mind was blown when I read about that site, and how they had there own currency. Never actually had the balls to dive into the deep web tho :lol

2013, don't even have to go outside to get your drugs.

[fiddy]

I actually think I made a thread on the deep web awhile back on ISH. My mind was blown when I read about that site, and how they had there own currency. Never actually had the balls to dive into the deep web tho :lol

2013, don't even have to go outside to get your drugs.
Bitcoin isnt made by silkroad.

[Dresta]

So people were buying drugs online via a website? Yeah, not like anyone could track that or anything.
They couldn't.

Haven't visited it in a while but it was a really good site and provided really good service (could order something at like 2pm one day and get it the next morning through the post properly heat sealed and well disguised). The seller ratings system allowed you to consistently get top-standard stuff.

****ing FBI trying to force people back to the gangster dealers that no one wants to have to deal with.

[Dresta]

That IS what's happening

Currently drug dealers either end up dead or in jail...and I like it that way

Mexico is a war zone of drug dealers killing each other? IMO that is the way they should have to live if they want to sell that shit. Not like the tobacco companies who are making billions legally by killing people.
You're a naive tool. Morons such as yourself are responsible for the deaths and sufferings of 10s of thousands of people throughout the world. All so you can feel safe about something you know nothing about. Utterly pathetic.

[ace23]

Dude's an inspiration.

[red1]

Dude's an inspiration.
+1. The guy is a legend

[gts]

You're a naive tool. Morons such as yourself are responsible for the deaths and sufferings of 10s of thousands of people throughout the world. All so you can feel safe about something you know nothing about. Utterly pathetic.

Actually the people using/buying illegal drugs are the one's who are ultimately responsible for the the people that die serving the drug trade.

Blaming LE or people that don't support legalization is just a way for users to deflect the blame from themselves

[HarryCallahan]

When you make theft and kidnapping the punishment for selling or ingesting a substance, that is completely voluntary you have no moral standing, even to criticize cartels.

[Dresta]

Actually the people using/buying illegal drugs are the one's who are ultimately responsible for the the people that die serving the drug trade.

Blaming LE or people that don't support legalization is just a way for users to deflect the blame from themselves
Wrong. The drug trade in and of itself doesn't kill anybody. In fact, it provides a livelihood for many farmers who otherwise would be destitute. It is funny how the American military spent years destroying the poppy farms in Afghanistan, ruining the lives of farmers and drawing the resentment of their population, while paying other countries to grow the same crops to feed the ever-growing demand for opiate painkillers.

I don't blame law enforcement: they are merely doing their jobs. I blame morons such as yourself who use phoney logic and fear to justify outrageous and liberty-destroying policies. Drug prohibition runs completely counter to the spirit of the US Constitution and the ethos of the American revolution. It has cost the country an obscene amounts of money while ruining the lives of many, and all to no observable benefit to anyone outside the prison industry, law enforcement agencies and criminal gangs who continue to demand and profit from it. On top of that it has contributed massively to the growth of the state and the general erosion of liberty.

You are clueless.

[RedBlackAttack]

Wrong. The drug trade in and of itself doesn't kill anybody. In fact, it provides a livelihood for many farmers who otherwise would be destitute. It is funny how the American military spent years destroying the poppy farms in Afghanistan, ruining the lives of farmers and drawing the resentment of their population, while paying other countries to grow the same crops to feed the ever-growing demand for opiate painkillers.

I don't blame law enforcement: they are merely doing their jobs. I blame morons such as yourself who use phoney logic and fear to justify outrageous and liberty-destroying policies. Drug prohibition runs completely counter to the spirit of the US Constitution and the ethos of the American revolution. It has cost the country an obscene amounts of money while ruining the lives of many, and all to no observable benefit to anyone outside the prison industry, law enforcement agencies and criminal gangs who continue to demand and profit from it. On top of that it has contributed massively to the growth of the state and the general erosion of liberty.

You are clueless.

You said it.

[-p.tiddy-]

nah

I would rather drug dealers have to kill each other as part of their daily business than be able to sit back and do it legally with no punishment

the users are going to kill themselves regardless of who sells it to them...and if all drugs were legal it would cost us millions to regulate anyway, we wouldn't be saving money. You know how much money alcohol (legal) costs to regulate? it doesn't decrease laws it ADDS laws...

[Dresta]

lol @ all the hateful comments i'm getting simply because the desperate and prejudicial little children can't handle what i have to say. It is not my fault that you all form dogmatic opinions about subjects you have next to no knowledge about, and then get upset when shown how wrong and desperately narrow-minded you are.


nah

I would rather drug dealers have to kill each other as part of their daily business than be able to sit back and do it legally with no punishment

the users are going to kill themselves regardless of who sells it to them...and if all drugs were legal it would cost us millions to regulate anyway, we wouldn't be saving money. You know how much money alcohol (legal) costs to regulate? it doesn't decrease laws it ADDS laws...
Oh yeh, that's right, drug users are intent on killing themselves, that is the only reason they get high. Really, the ignorance is astounding. Just to inform you, the primary killer of illegal drug users, rather than the substance itself, is the illegality of said substances, and the consequent tampering dealt to them by drug dealers. It is rather difficult to overdose on a drug when you know how much of it there is, and how much will kill you. If you want evidence of this i suggest you look at the prohibition period where deaths from alcohol use skyrocketed as people consumed substances they would never have touched had it remained legal.

And it isn't just drug dealers 'killing each other' - because of the vast amounts of money they accrue they kill many law enforcement officers who would otherwise be alive, and many innocent civilians who have nothing to do with this conflict which was forced upon them. Money is power and you are handing some of the most dangerous and barbaric people on the planet all the power that they need on a ****ing plate, and then you act all self-righteous about it. I don't honestly think there is a more cowardly and pathetic view to have than supporting such an obscene policy, and to so callously accept the misery and suffering of millions simply so you can maintain a mirage of your mundane middle-class suburbia. How unbelievably disgusting!

Oh no, regulating drugs will cost *gasp* 'millions' - well the drug war this year alone has cost in excess of 30 billion, so sorry if i don't give a shit about small peanuts in the grand scheme of things.

[ItsMillerTime]

nah

I would rather drug dealers have to kill each other as part of their daily business than be able to sit back and do it legally with no punishment

the users are going to kill themselves regardless of who sells it to them...and if all drugs were legal it would cost us millions to regulate anyway, we wouldn't be saving money. You know how much money alcohol (legal) costs to regulate? it doesn't decrease laws it ADDS laws...

Drug dealers wouldn't be in business if we could purchase drugs legally.

Do you know how much businesses and states make off of alcohol sales?

:facepalm

[-p.tiddy-]

Drug dealers wouldn't be in business if we could purchase drugs legally.

Do you know how much businesses and states make off of alcohol sales?

:facepalm
YES THEY WOULD, they would just be legal business men instead


again, I would rather have the drug dealers out there slaughtering each other and going to jail then be white men is suits living the high life till age 100

[-p.tiddy-]

lol @ all the hateful comments i'm getting simply because the desperate and prejudicial little children can't handle what i have to say. It is not my fault that you all form dogmatic opinions about subjects you have next to no knowledge about, and then get upset when shown how wrong and desperately narrow-minded you are.


Oh yeh, that's right, drug users are intent on killing themselves, that is the only reason they get high. Really, the ignorance is astounding. Just to inform you, the primary killer of illegal drug users, rather than the substance itself, is the illegality of said substances, and the consequent tampering dealt to them by drug dealers. It is rather difficult to overdose on a drug when you know how much of it there is, and how much will kill you. If you want evidence of this i suggest you look at the prohibition period where deaths from alcohol use skyrocketed as people consumed substances they would never have touched had it remained legal.

And it isn't just drug dealers 'killing each other' - because of the vast amounts of money they accrue they kill many law enforcement officers who would otherwise be alive, and many innocent civilians who have nothing to do with this conflict which was forced upon them. Money is power and you are handing some of the most dangerous and barbaric people on the planet all the power that they need on a ****ing plate, and then you act all self-righteous about it. I don't honestly think there is a more cowardly and pathetic view to have than supporting such an obscene policy, and to so callously accept the misery and suffering of millions simply so you can maintain a mirage of your mundane middle-class suburbia. How unbelievably disgusting!

Oh no, regulating drugs will cost *gasp* 'millions' - well the drug war this year alone has cost in excess of 30 billion, so sorry if i don't give a shit about small peanuts in the grand scheme of things.
no your reading comprehension just sucks...I never said that the users are intent on killing themselves...I am saying that the users who are destine to die from drugs will do so regardless of who sells it to them...be it a legal drug dealer in a suit and tie, or a blackmarket dealer on the street

and the "drug war" will exist regardless of legality...it costs money to regulate LEGAL AND ILLEGAL DRUGS...also money is spent on education of drugs, which will be the same regardless...

[Dresta]

no your reading comprehension just sucks...I never said that the users are intent on killing themselves...I am saying that the users who are destine to die from drugs will do so regardless of who sells it to them...be it a legal drug dealer in a suit and tie, or a blackmarket dealer on the street

and the "drug war" will exist regardless of legality...it costs money to regulate LEGAL AND ILLEGAL DRUGS...also money is spent on education of drugs, which will be the same regardless...
Sorry, but that is equally idiotic. And it is not my reading comprehension that sucks, it is your ability to convey what you are saying; you're a borderline illiterate for Christ's sake. You keep saying 'legal drug dealers' - well, those already exist by your definition: they're called doctors and the pharmaceutical industry, the latter of whom make a fortune selling synthetic drugs that are less effective than those that have been made illegal.

Money is already spent on the education about drugs you ignorant cretin (it isn't accurate however, more just mindless propaganda, hence the ignorance of tools like you who think all users of drugs 'destined to die from drugs - seriously, how thick can you be); and once again, it is peanuts compared to what would be saved both in lives and money.

You're arguments simply don't make any sense and are what i'd expect to hear from an uneducated child (are you one of those?).

[Dresta]

YES THEY WOULD, they would just be legal business men instead


again, I would rather have the drug dealers out there slaughtering each other and going to jail then be white men is suits living the high life till age 100
Yeh, because it's better for psychopathic murderers to make tonnes of money than for there to be another legitimate business avenue from which to make money. You are an absolute TURD.

You clearly have not read anything i wrote (can you even read?).

[ace23]

again, I would rather have the drug dealers out there slaughtering each other and going to jail then be white men is suits living the high life till age 100
Why would they be white men?

And there are already legal drug dealers: doctors.

[-p.tiddy-]

Yeh, because it's better for psychopathic murderers to make tonnes of money than for there to be another legitimate business avenue from which to make money. You are an absolute TURD.

You clearly have not read anything i wrote (can you even read?).
I skim your posts, barely read them...yes

Its just blabber...

Yes it is better for the people that sell drugs to die IMO...you disagree? Cool I don't give a shit, go run a legalize cocaine rally or something twerp.

[-p.tiddy-]

Why would they be white men?

And there are already legal drug dealers: doctors.
The drug companies, tobacco companies, and alcohol companies (owned by old white men) are the legal dealers today.

And yeah we have enough of that IMO...with the exception of pot I would prefer the other stuff be sold by people that die or go to jail.

[Scoooter]

I would rather drug dealers be forced to slaughter each other than be able to sell legally like tobacco companies...

Want to make millions dealing drugs? Good luck seeing any decent form of retirement.
Why?

[HeatFanSince88]

so how did they end up catching the creator of the website if the deep web is indeed "untraceable"?

[-p.tiddy-]

so how did they end up catching the creator of the website if the deep web is indeed "untraceable"?
http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/everything-the-silk-road-founder-did-to-get-caught

[Dresta]

I skim your posts, barely read them...yes

Its just blabber...

Yes it is better for the people that sell drugs to die IMO...you disagree? Cool I don't give a shit, go run a legalize cocaine rally or something twerp.
No, you don't read them because you are incapable of understanding any concept that takes longer than a sentence to express, due to your being an illiterate and uneducated buffoon. And in the typical fashion of the uneducated buffoon you refuse to read anything that contradicts your own logically incongruous and downright imbecilic viewpoints

And of course i disagree with you, because i don't live in the simplified black/white, good/bad world in which you appear to reside. I suggest you go and read up on the effects of the drug war around the world, not just on 'people who sell drugs' as you so idiotically put it.

I honestly cannot understand how anyone can be as boneheaded as you - your stupidity is off the ****ing charts. Please don't reproduce; people like you make me feel as if the human race fully deserves extermination.

:banghead:

edit: you are also ignoring the fact that federal drug laws are completely unconstitutional, so what you think about it really has zero relevance to the matter (but i guess that is just 'blabber' amirite?).

[Dwade305]

Dresta going in lol.

[Just2McFly]

dresta doing his best dylan impersonation in this thread

[-p.tiddy-]

Dresta going in lol.
hello Dresta :lol



the "legalize everything" crowd has passion but it is a young crowd...once you grow up a bit your views on this will change (with the exception of pot of course)

keep in mind...

THE MAJORITY AGREES WITH ME...that is why the law is the way it is currently, so you can stop acting as though I am "loon" in my beliefs, the current laws reflect my beliefs as well as most people who are old enough to vote.

Try running for office with a "legalize everything" campaign...and see how long you last :lol

[SCREWstonRockets]

No, you don't read them because you are incapable of understanding any concept that takes longer than a sentence to express, due to your being an illiterate and uneducated buffoon. And in the typical fashion of the uneducated buffoon you refuse to read anything that contradicts your own logically incongruous and downright imbecilic viewpoints

And of course i disagree with you, because i don't live in the simplified black/white, good/bad world in which you appear to reside. I suggest you go and read up on the effects of the drug war around the world, not just on 'people who sell drugs' as you so idiotically put it.

I honestly cannot understand how anyone can be as boneheaded as you - your stupidity is off the ****ing charts. Please don't reproduce; people like you make me feel as if the human race fully deserves extermination.

:banghead:

edit: you are also ignoring the fact that federal drug laws are completely unconstitutional, so what you think about it really has zero relevance to the matter (but i guess that is just 'blabber' amirite?).

Damn.

http://images.wikia.com/thehungergames/images/9/9a/Laughing.gif

[ItsMillerTime]

Primetime getting destroyed and he doesn't even know it.

:hammerhead:

[-p.tiddy-]

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-EjqW8pOecM0/UVNi2XiElWI/AAAAAAAAQ_g/kfWuHMk7zbg/s400/Sleeves.jpeg


alright kids...I'll take all you little fckers down :lol

bunch of kids who are pissed they can't purchase their coke at 7-11 along with their lite beer so instead they pretend to actually give a shit about weather or not the legality of drugs is "constitutional" :lol

"whaa it's unconstitutional" ...gtfo

of course this thread attracts your types...who look up to "Dread Pirate Roberts" as some kind of legend :facepalm

[-p.tiddy-]

here suck on this shit Dresta:


Excessive alcohol consumption costs taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars a year, according to a new study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
http://www.livescience.com/16584-excessive-alcohol-consumption-cost.html


want me to find the tobacco and prescription drug costs to the tax payers as well?


Booz and Tobacco and prescription drugs (the legal stuff) make the "drug war" look like fckin chump change in terms of tax payer money...stop pretending like legalizing things will suddenly make us all rich...it's pure stupidity and ignorance

[Dresta]

hello Dresta :lol

the "legalize everything" crowd has passion but it is a young crowd...once you grow up a bit your views on this will change (with the exception of pot of course)

keep in mind...

THE MAJORITY AGREES WITH ME...that is why the law is the way it is currently, so you can stop acting as though I am "loon" in my beliefs, the current laws reflect my beliefs as well as most people who are old enough to vote.

Try running for office with a "legalize everything" campaign...and see how long you last :lol
I really couldn't care less whether the majority agrees with you. In fact, if the majority is of a certain opinion, then you could make a pretty good guess that that opinion is wrong. The masses don't have a clue and they never have done. It is for this reason that the founders implemented safeguards to protect against 'the tyranny of the majority' - this was the purpose of the Constitution: to outline the limits of legitimate government action, and protect against their infringement. So when i say the drug war is unconstitutional, that makes the opinion of the majority completely irrelevant - it is still illegal, and it is as simple as that.

Drug laws are not only illegal, but they are also steeped in racism. Cocaine was banned from a fear of black men going crazy and raping white women (some propaganda even said it gave them the strength to deflect bullets). Hemp was renamed marijuana to increase its association with Mexicans, and opiates were maligned due to the Chinese. It was a gross puritanism that led to these laws, and if you don't know that you are ignorant of history.

What is wrong with drug use exactly? Have you ever thought why it is immoral?:

'It is in practise behaviour of a kind disliked by the herd. By calling it
unrighteousness, and by arranging an elaborate system of ethics around this
conception, the herd justifies itself in wreaking punishment upon the objects
of its own dislike, while at the same time, since the herd is righteous by
definition, it enhances its own self-esteem at the very moment when it lets
loose its impulse to cruelty. This is the psychology of lynching, and of the
other ways in which criminals are punished. The essence of the conception of
righteousness, therefore, is to afford an outlet for sadism by cloaking cruelty
as justice.

[-p.tiddy-]

yes the majority CAN be wrong, but the majority is right more times than not...in this debate it is like abortion, there is no clear route to take that makes everything "good". It sucks no matter how we arrange things.

let's focus on this:


What is wrong with drug use exactly? Have you ever thought why it is immoral?

so you are debating weather or not drugs are "immoral"?...you are of the opinion that the only reason we view them as bad is because that is what the "herd" thinks. And "therefore, is to afford an outlet for sadism by cloaking cruelty as justice"...as though it isn't really "justice" to punish those involved in this business.

correct?

http://www.alexsingleton.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Thank-You-For-Smoking.jpeg

^^^ you are basically playing the role of that guy

IMO there are much better arguments for why drugs should be legal than trying to hide the fact that they are harmful...because that is just eye rolling...most people in this country over the age of 30 either know someone or have seen someone that has died to drug use and ripped their family apart.

oh but wait let me guess! "anything can kill you if abused!, drinking too much water can kill you so should we make water illegal?" :facepalm

http://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/timesdispatch.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/d/13/d1373250-c873-58f7-80c7-c7dcb43a2af5/50f87aa97b7d9.image.jpg

^^^ this is Martin J. Barrington...he is the CEO of Phillip Morris

THE ONLY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THIS SCUMBAG AND SCARFACE IS THAT HE GETS TO LIVE A LONG, HAPPY, VIOLENCE FREE LIFE


And you want our government to do all the drug dealers of the world a huge favor by cleaning up everything for them and creating a huge NEW set of laws to regulate all these drugs so that they can do business in a legal manner and live long, happy, healthy lives just like Martin J. Barrington? and you feel overly passionate about it too?...Why though? the extra tax money that tobacco brings in DOESN'T EVEN COME CLOSE to paying for all the hospital bills that it brings...tobacco costs the tax payers way more money than it brings in. Same with Prescription drugs and booz, regardless of what you think about that article alcohol without question costs the tax payers a pretty penny. The "drug war" is the cheap way out...and that war doesn't just vanish with legality either...WE STILL ARREST MILLIONS OF PEOPLE EACH YEAR BECAUSE OF ALCOHOL...WHICH IS LEGAL

[Snoop_Cat]

1 bitcoin is worth $127 or so USD.

Not sure what the prices are now since they fluctuate but I would assume that it crashed hard after SilkRoad got shut down.

[KeylessEntry]

In the US, perscription drug abuse causes more deaths than cocaine and heroin combined.

[KNOW1EDGE]

So the sight is shut down now?

Home come I learn about cool things like this AFTER they get shut down?!?!

I could use some guns and drugs.

[HylianNightmare]

So the sight is shut down now?

Home come I learn about cool things like this AFTER they get shut down?!?!

I could use some guns and drugs.


there are a ton of sites like this on the deep web, most of the big time users on the SR are on other sites as well, and the silk road forums are still very active with most guys letting you know which new sites they are using

or so i hear...

[Dresta]

yes the majority CAN be wrong, but the majority is right more times than not...in this debate it is like abortion, there is no clear route to take that makes everything "good". It sucks no matter how we arrange things.

let's focus on this:

so you are debating weather or not drugs are "immoral"?...you are of the opinion that the only reason we view them as bad is because that is what the "herd" thinks. And "therefore, is to afford an outlet for sadism by cloaking cruelty as justice"...as though it isn't really "justice" to punish those involved in this business.

correct?

http://www.alexsingleton.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Thank-You-For-Smoking.jpeg

^^^ you are basically playing the role of that guy

IMO there are much better arguments for why drugs should be legal than trying to hide the fact that they are harmful...because that is just eye rolling...most people in this country over the age of 30 either know someone or have seen someone that has died to drug use and ripped their family apart.

oh but wait let me guess! "anything can kill you if abused!, drinking too much water can kill you so should we make water illegal?" :facepalm

http://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/timesdispatch.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/d/13/d1373250-c873-58f7-80c7-c7dcb43a2af5/50f87aa97b7d9.image.jpg

^^^ this is Martin J. Barrington...he is the CEO of Phillip Morris

THE ONLY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THIS SCUMBAG AND SCARFACE IS THAT HE GETS TO LIVE A LONG, HAPPY, VIOLENCE FREE LIFE


And you want our government to do all the drug dealers of the world a huge favor by cleaning up everything for them and creating a huge NEW set of laws to regulate all these drugs so that they can do business in a legal manner and live long, happy, healthy lives just like Martin J. Barrington? and you feel overly passionate about it too?...Why though? the extra tax money that tobacco brings in DOESN'T EVEN COME CLOSE to paying for all the hospital bills that it brings...tobacco costs the tax payers way more money than it brings in. Same with Prescription drugs and booz, regardless of what you think about that article alcohol without question costs the tax payers a pretty penny. The "drug war" is the cheap way out...and that war doesn't just vanish with legality either...WE STILL ARREST MILLIONS OF PEOPLE EACH YEAR BECAUSE OF ALCOHOL...WHICH IS LEGALNo, the majority is almost always wrong. This debate is nothing like abortion. It has been shown time and time again that the dug laws are inefficacious, and cause for more problems than they prevent. If you had looked at how the crime rates shot up across the board after these laws were brought in, and how the use of drugs such as heroin and cocaine shot up after they were made illegal (when you could buy heroin in a cough syrup btw), then you would know this. It is why economists hold that the war should be ended near-unanimously. It is why Portugal's experiment in decriminalisation has been a resounding success.

Nor did i postulate that drugs weren't harmful. Of course they can be, but they can also all be taken safely and responsibly, provided that they are not illegal. It is not that drugs aren't harmful; it is that drugs become far more harmful when they are prohibited. If you would look at how alcohol related deaths skyrocketed during prohibition then you would know this also.

We don't arrest millions of people merely for drinking alcohol, we arrest them for doing illegal things under the influence of alcohol; that is the difference. Not to mention that alcohol has been shown using scientific studies to be the most socially destructive drug - by far!

And man, you really missed the point of that film (and book): it was a biting satire on the sanctimonious do-gooders who are intent on forcing their morality onto others (a bit like you really); your sympathies were supposed to be with Nick Naylor rather than the hysterical and hypocritical anti-smoking crusaders. And no, tobacco is a massive net plus for an economy overburdened with pensions payments. The tax revenue it brings in in many places is massive. You don't have a clue what you're talking about.

I feel passionate about it because the drug war causes so much misery and suffering around the world, and it could be so easily avoided if some many people weren't so prejudiced about things that they have no understanding of. Yes, it is sadistic, and it provides an outlet for the collective herd to inflict sadism upon others, merely because they have different habits from those inside the herd. Thus cruelty is cloaked as justice because it is 'wrong' to take drugs (who says?) and those that do can be severely punished for it while maintaining piece of mind.

I find the whole thing positively abhorrent.

[tpols]

We don't arrest millions of people merely for drinking alcohol, we arrest them for doing illegal things under the influence of alcohol; that is the difference. Not to mention that alcohol has been shown using scientific studies to be the most socially destructive drug - by far!
.
Yup.. that cough medicine aka morphine you were talking about was prescribed to alcoholics even when the doctors knew it was addictive because it was better to have a patient doped out, reclused in his home than boozed up beating his wife, fighting, causing mischief etc.

comparing alcohols detriment to society to other drugs is dumb...

[BRabbiT]

http://i.cbc.ca/1.1913588.1380936135!/cpImage/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/original_300/drug-website-shutdown.jpg
http://www.ctvnews.ca/polopoly_fs/1.1491446!/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_620/image.jpg
http://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/ivpressonline.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/5/76/576bee2e-20e4-5057-8041-76659a38e1ce/525224a988ff2.preview-300.jpg




Ulbricht appeared in court on Wednesday in San Francisco facing three felony charged including solicitation of murder.

During the brief hearing Ulbricht put off seeking bail and agreed with Magistrate Joseph Spero's order to have his trial heard in New York, where the original charges were filed.

Ulbricht will now be brought to New York by federal marshals where he will be eligible to seek bail while he awaits trial.

Ulbrict faces charges of money-laundering, computer-hacking, drug-trafficking as well as soliciting someone to murder a Canadian Silk Road user.

During the hearing Ulbricht appeared unshaven but alert, and aside from saying "good morning" to the Judge, said nothing. Ulbricht first appeared in court last week denying all charges against him.

LeBlanc said after the hearing that Ulbricht would have different representation in New York but failed to reveal if it would be another public defender or privately retained representation.

LINK (http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/512799/20131010/sillk-road-operator-ross-ulbricht-denies-dread.htm)

[Take Your Lumps]

Bitcoins can be broken into fractions, for a cup of coffee you would pay like .01 bitcoin.


I'm not a huge fan of how that works.

I suppose you're not a fan of how nickels and dimes work either?

[-p.tiddy-]

No, the majority is almost always wrong.
really? the majority is almost always wrong? about EVERYTHING?...so whatever opinion the majority has, chances are that opinion is wrong? lol

and how did you come to this conclusion exactly?


It has been shown time and time again that the dug laws are inefficacious, and cause for more problems than they prevent.
How has that been shown exactly?...again...OUR LEGAL DRUGS CAUSE A BILLION TIMES MORE PROBLEMS THAN THE ILLEGAL ONES DO.

you think half this country would be addicted to xanax if it was all black market?



Nor did i postulate that drugs weren't harmful. Of course they can be, but they can also all be taken safely and responsibly, provided that they are not illegal. It is not that drugs aren't harmful; it is that drugs become far more harmful when they are prohibited. If you would look at how alcohol related deaths skyrocketed during prohibition then you would know this also.

We don't arrest millions of people merely for drinking alcohol, we arrest them for doing illegal things under the influence of alcohol; that is the difference. Not to mention that alcohol has been shown using scientific studies to be the most socially destructive drug - by far!
^^^ this is all "Thank You for Smoking" talk...

"drugs CAN be harmful, but..."

"Alcohol isn't the problem, it's the illegal things people do while drunk..."

etc


bottom line, drugs and alcohol cause far more harm than good to society...


And man, you really missed the point of that film (and book): it was a biting satire on the sanctimonious do-gooders who are intent on forcing their morality onto others (a bit like you really); your sympathies were supposed to be with Nick Naylor rather than the hysterical and hypocritical anti-smoking crusaders. And no, tobacco is a massive net plus for an economy overburdened with pensions payments. The tax revenue it brings in in many places is massive. You don't have a clue what you're talking about.

Smokers Cost Taxpayers $10 Billion (http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2007/11/tobacco_cost.html)


Five years after all current smokers who receive Medicaid benefits quit smoking, program expenditures would be an estimated $9.7 billion lower, according to a new report by researchers at RTI International.

The report, funded by the American Legacy Foundation, found that Medicaid expenditures attributable to current smokers account for 5.6 percent of total national Medicaid expenditures.

"Reducing the number of smokers in the United States could save taxpayers billions of dollars in Medicaid costs," said Justin Trogdon, Ph.D., an RTI health economist. "Policy makers looking for ways to reduce health care costs in America would be wise to look at areas of health behaviors that both improve health and reduce health care costs."

are you sure it isn't you that doesn't know what they are talking about?


I feel passionate about it because the drug war causes so much misery and suffering around the world, and it could be so easily avoided if some many people weren't so prejudiced about things that they have no understanding of. Yes, it is sadistic, and it provides an outlet for the collective herd to inflict sadism upon others, merely because they have different habits from those inside the herd. Thus cruelty is cloaked as justice because it is 'wrong' to take drugs (who says?) and those that do can be severely punished for it while maintaining piece of mind.

I find the whole thing positively abhorrent.
IMO the legal drugs are causing much more pain and suffering than the illegal drugs...in the US anyway

and IMO "drug dealers" should be punished...and not allowed to work like the CEO of Phillip Morris

I feel this really comes down to you not thinking that the selling of drugs is morally wrong, and me feeling the opposite...we will likely never changes each other's thoughts on that.

[Dresta]

really? the majority is almost always wrong? about EVERYTHING?...so whatever opinion the majority has, chances are that opinion is wrong? lol

and how did you come to this conclusion exactly?Yes, that's right. It is a well known conclusion, which is known to almost anyone that has been properly educated. As Mark Twain said: 'Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.'

Because majority opinion is almost always held by those who do not bother to utilise their own mental faculties, but merely accept an opinion because it is held by many others. It is seen in all walks of life: from the films people watch, the books they read, the things they find funny, the opinions they hold, the things they do for leisure etc. etc. People just love to be told what do like and think and do; it is called the herd mentality (another well known concept). In fact, if you'd care to look up the 'Asch conformity experiment' you would see that people are willing to deny what they see with their own eyes if it does not fit in with the herd.

Also: 'It is only because the majority opinion will always be opposed by some that our knowledge and understanding progress. In the process by which opinion is formed, it is very probable that, by the time any view becomes a majority view, it is no longer the best view: somebody will already have advanced beyond the point the majority have reached.

[Dresta]

Is this dude dresta talkin shit about my beloved alcohol?

Most socially destructive drug?:biggums:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11660210 (watch videos)


I'm not talking shit about any drug, i'm just saying the harms need to be put into perspective. Too much irrationality going about when it comes to illegal drugs.

[-p.tiddy-]

Yes, that's right. It is a well known conclusion, which is known to almost anyone that has been properly educated. As Mark Twain said: 'Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.'

Because majority opinion is almost always held by those who do not bother to utilise their own mental faculties, but merely accept an opinion because it is held by many others. It is seen in all walks of life: from the films people watch, the books they read, the things they find funny, the opinions they hold, the things they do for leisure etc. etc. People just love to be told what do like and think and do; it is called the herd mentality (another well known concept). In fact, if you'd care to look up the 'Asch conformity experiment' you would see that people are willing to deny what they see with their own eyes if it does not fit in with the herd.

Also: 'It is only because the majority opinion will always be opposed by some that our knowledge and understanding progress. In the process by which opinion is formed, it is very probable that, by the time any view becomes a majority view, it is no longer the best view: somebody will already have advanced beyond the point the majority have reached.’ – If the majority opinion were to control everything, then nothing could ever change.

History is littered with examples of people who were right being persecuted by the self-righteous majority.
you know, as far as this web site dominated 20-something males goes, I am in the minority on this...not that I believe for a second that there is any actual scientific legitimacy to all those little sayings thrown out by Twain and others...I mean the majority thinks that when thirsty you should drink water, and they are right...this entire concept that the majority is always wrong is beyond vague



The Xanax problem largely comes from people's blind deference to doctors and the fact that when they were first prescribed they were declared to be 'non-addictive.' Nevertheless, drugs like Xanax and Valium are extremely useful and make life bearable for many with extremely debilitating anxiety.

Alcohol is not the problem. You are simply exculpating people from the responsibility of what they do while under the influence. A world without drugs would be a miserable place. You may have no use for them now, but when you have to undertake a serious medical procedure, or when you are old and crippled and in constant pain, you will be BEGGING for some pain medication.
right xanax and alcohol aren't the problem, it is something ELSE...same with tobacco right?...and every other LEGAL substance that just happens to cause more harm in this country than illegal substances

it is just one big giant coincidence that all of our legal drugs happen to be more harmful than the illegal drugs...

and yes I understand that drugs can be used in a good way, when treated as MEDICINE...but with the exception of pot the drugs you want to legalize have no healing properties...not that we know of anyway, the opiates that are used as medicine today ARE LEGAL PRESCRIBED BY DOCTORS...(and doing more harm than the illegal opiates)


It is not 'Thank you for Smoking talk' it is simply that i value personal freedom over forcefully protecting people from their own stupidity (poorly too, i might add, and at the expense of everyone else's freedom). If people were encouraged more often to THINK FOR THEMSELVES, then many of these problems would be massively diminished.

It's about protecting people from OTHER PEOPLE'S STUPIDITY...it might be different if drug and alcohol abuse ONLY affected the user, but it isn't that black and white...you can't just trust people to be responsible, it doesn't work...people are stupid, particularly young people...with drugs, guns, and everything else...

[-p.tiddy-]

Sound doesn't work on my laptop:(

I haven't been following this argument because it's with tiddy, I just know he said he prefers gang violence to legalized drugs which is an odd stance...
I would prefer none of it exist, but I like that drug dealers are forced to live hard lives, and either die young or go to prison...as opposed to the tobacco company owners who don't

[Scoooter]

p. tiddy, I'm having trouble nailing down your point. Do you want all drugs, including alcohol and tobacco, to be illegal?

[tpols]

it is just one big giant coincidence that all of our legal drugs happen to be more harmful than the illegal drugs...
They're more harmful because there is less awareness about their negative side effects. People trust doctors and their opinions.

Your average Joe or mom or whoever doesn't have a problen taking a pill from their doc to deal with their back pain or anxiety.. Whatever the issue is. They're not going to cop some heroine and shoot up because they're having a bad day. But they'll take their percocet.

If coke or herein became legal the same negative aura would surround it and they still wouldn't do it. It would be like tobacco where there'd be a million labels everywhere saying how bad it is.


Where are those labels for scripts? Nowhere because it's big business and it relatively new and shrouded in ignorance. Old drugs like coke and herein could never be protected in the same way.

[-p.tiddy-]

p. tiddy, I'm having trouble nailing down your point. Do you want all drugs, including alcohol and tobacco, to be illegal?
Alcohol and Tobacco are impossible to make illegal ( is there a country that has accomplished that?). If it was possible to regulate those two things then I would most definitely be for it. Each year both alcohol and tobacco kill thousands THAT DONT EVEN DRINK OR SMOKE!

but my point is that with the exception of pot, I would prefer the drugs that are currently illegal to remain that way. I like coke and heroine in the black market where those that sell that poison are forced to live a hard life.

[Scoooter]

Alcohol and Tobacco are impossible to make illegal ( is there a country that has accomplished that?). If it was possible to regulate those two things then I would most definitely be for it. Each year both alcohol and tobacco kill thousands THAT DONT EVEN DRINK OR SMOKE!

but my point is that with the exception of pot, I would prefer the drugs that are currently illegal to remain that way. I like coke and heroine in the black market where those that sell that poison are forced to live a hard life.
The United States made alcohol illegal from 1920 to 1933.

[-p.tiddy-]

The United States made alcohol illegal from 1920 to 1933.
Yes it failed...we were unsuccessful

[Dresta]

They're more harmful because there is less awareness about their negative side effects. People trust doctors and their opinions.

Your average Joe or mom or whoever doesn't have a problen taking a pill from their doc to deal with their back pain or anxiety.. Whatever the issue is. They're not going to cop some heroine and shoot up because they're having a bad day. But they'll take their percocet.

If coke or herein became legal the same negative aura would surround it and they still wouldn't do it. It would be like tobacco where there'd be a million labels everywhere saying how bad it is.

Where are those labels for scripts? Nowhere because it's big business and it relatively new and shrouded in ignorance. Old drugs like coke and herein could never be protected in the same way.Yep, and they're very close to being the same thing. Funny how distorted people's perceptions are. It doesn't help that you've got mindless dolts like that p.tiddy guy going around spewing nonsense like 'drugs r bad mmmmkay..' He doesn't even realise that some of the drugs he thinks are evil like heroin are the same as ones which are apparently 'medical' such as morphine.

He thinks there is a distinction to be made. But if he knew anything he'd know that nearly all the illegal drugs have medical properties and that the dividing line that has been drawn is utterly arbitrary and unscientific.


Alcohol and Tobacco are impossible to make illegal ( is there a country that has accomplished that?). If it was possible to regulate those two things then I would most definitely be for it. Each year both alcohol and tobacco kill thousands THAT DONT EVEN DRINK OR SMOKE!

but my point is that with the exception of pot, I would prefer the drugs that are currently illegal to remain that way. I like coke and heroine in the black market where those that sell that poison are forced to live a hard life.
Oh, enough of your ignorance! Tobacco and alcohol don't kill thousands that don't drink or smoke: you are talking out of your azz. Everything you say seems to be the result of your own credulity and need to believe what you're told blindly. Learn to think for yourself! Alcohol and tobacco are massively regulated, so i would guess you meant 'ban' rather than regulate, and with that, you've just shown yourself to be a petty little social-authoritarian who wants to control everyone's lives with his indoctrinated pseudo-morality, which is undoubtedly steeped in religiosity and ignorance. (i bet you are religious)

The muslims banned alcohol a long time ago. What is so magical about alcohol and tobacco that makes them impossible to ban? Alcohol WAS banned, and it was a total failure, just like contemporary prohibition.

Heroin is not a poison and has no toxic effects on the body. Pity that it is frequently cut with poisonous substances as a result of prohibition.

[Dresta]

Yes it failed...we were unsuccessful
And the ways it failed are exactly the same ways the drug war has been failing for decades.

Geez, you are so stupid man.

:hammerhead:

[-p.tiddy-]

And the ways it failed are exactly the same ways the drug war has been failing for decades.

Geez, you are so stupid man.

:hammerhead:
Uh no...not even close.:facepalm

I'm on my phone I'll get to your last post later...

[-p.tiddy-]

Tobacco kills nearly 6 million people each year. More than five million of those deaths are the result of direct tobacco use while more than 600 000 are the result of non-smokers being exposed to second-hand smoke. Unless urgent action is taken, the annual death toll could rise to more than eight million by 2030.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs339/en/

Read dumb ass

Do I need to bring in drunk driving deaths too?

[-p.tiddy-]

Of course you'll just discredit that link like every link I bring in here lol...meanwhile making up your owns stats and accusing me of ass talking lol

[-p.tiddy-]

And no I am not religious... Never been to church once

[tpols]

Tobacco kills nearly 6 million people each year. More than five million of those deaths are the result of direct tobacco use while more than 600 000 are the result of non-smokers being exposed to second-hand smoke. Unless urgent action is taken, the annual death toll could rise to more than eight million by 2030.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs339/en/

Read dumb ass

Do I need to bring in drunk driving deaths too?


How does using a drug compare to smoking? If I use a drug near you, you are not subject to its effects. If I smoke near you you are subject to its effects. Totally different mechanisms.


If you want to argue crime you have to first prove that legalization would mean more use(good luck). Furthermore you'd have to distinguish between socioeconomic factors and upbringing and whether they are more influential than the drugs themselves.

a lot of hard drugs are sold by violent criminals in poor urban areas.. The crime has just as much to do with the environment as the drugs do.

[-p.tiddy-]

He said I was making up that thousands die every year from alcohol and tobacco that don't drink and smoke...

It came up because I was asked if I want those made illegal

[Scoooter]

Yes it failed...we were unsuccessful
No, that's wrong. It may have been a horrendous decision, but we were very successful at making alcohol illegal. We even ensconced it's illegality in the Constitution. It doesn't get more illegal than that.

[Dresta]

Tobacco kills nearly 6 million people each year. More than five million of those deaths are the result of direct tobacco use while more than 600 000 are the result of non-smokers being exposed to second-hand smoke. Unless urgent action is taken, the annual death toll could rise to more than eight million by 2030.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs339/en/

Read dumb ass

Do I need to bring in drunk driving deaths too?Have you even bothered to look at how that figure was dredged up? They multiply incidence rates in single studies (tiny numbers) by huge population numbers. It is hokum.

Look, i can post links too:

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/passive-smoking-is-there-convincing-evidence-that-its-harmful-476472.html

'A recent report by the International Agency for Research on Cancer reveals that, "In total, 23 studies have been published on [workplace] exposure to secondhand smoke. Only one reported a statistically significant association between exposure to secondhand smoke at the workplace and risk for lung cancer." One out of 23 is usually dismissed as a rogue result.'

So people breaking the law for driving when drunk are not criminals? It is the alcohol that is responsible and not them? Stop your bs.

What else do you want to ban? The way many people eat in this country is far worse for your health than any drug, are you going to ban all unhealthy foods too? What about cars? They kill man people and produce foul fumes filled with carcinogens that people happily breath all day, but when someone gets a cigarette out they start batting the air like a swivel-eyed loon.

I mean, the United States only has the HIGHEST prison population in the world already (larger than China); it also has the highest number of drug offenders, and the highest number of drug users, and has some of the strictest drug laws. How much clearer does this need to be for you to see that it isn't working? You seem to just want to put nearly the whole country into prison for not living up to your bogus morality.

[Dresta]

No, that's wrong. It may have been a horrendous decision, but we were very successful at making alcohol illegal. We even ensconced it's illegality in the Constitution. It doesn't get more illegal than that.
Yes, it's funny that alcohol required a Constitutional amendment whereas other drugs did not (it being exactly the same principle) - they were simply slipped through the cracks while everyone was still up in arms about alcohol.

Then through the years the has resulted in a massive expansion of the administrative branch of government until you get the bureaucratic hell-hole we have today. I would say the erosion of liberty became inevitable once you granted the government the right and power to determine what people can put into their own bodies (not that the people had a say, they simply didn't protest it).

[KNOW1EDGE]

can someone post a link or pm me a link to the new website for the silk road or any other online black market website where one could purchase guns, drugs and other fun stuff???

[Dresta]

****ers are arresting other people now:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57606609-93/silk-road-drug-busts-multiply-eight-new-people-arrested/

Just for providing a good service.

Victory for the Mexican cartels!!!

[BRabbiT]

****ers are arresting other people now:


not surprised.

more people will be implicated. it's inevitable.

[-p.tiddy-]

****ers are arresting other people now:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57606609-93/silk-road-drug-busts-multiply-eight-new-people-arrested/

Just for providing a good service.

Victory for the Mexican cartels!!!
right because that web site wasn't absolutely loaded with drugs from Mexico?...:facepalm

this site shutting down isn't a victory for the cartels...it's a loss

besides, you are on the side of the cartels aren't you?...they are just selling something that should be legal right?...it's not their fault a large % of the users are uneducated on how to use their products responsibly.

[Dresta]

right because that web site wasn't absolutely loaded with drugs from Mexico?...:facepalm

this site shutting down isn't a victory for the cartels...it's a loss

besides, you are on the side of the cartels aren't you?...they are just selling something that should be legal right?...it's not their fault a large % of the users are uneducated on how to use their products responsibly.
Sure some of it would have been. But a lot of it wasn't.

I'm not on the side of the cartels, i'm on the side of the individual to have sovereign control over his/her own body. What is it about this that you are incapable of understanding? Silk Road made the procurement of drugs safer, more enjoyable, and less expensive for users. THAT is what made it an invaluable service.

Glad you ignored my utter destruction of your pathetic and paternalistic arguments as well. Suppose you can't keep repeating the same nonsensical garble for ever, or can you?

[niko]

Sure some of it would have been. But a lot of it wasn't.

I'm not on the side of the cartels, i'm on the side of the individual to have sovereign control over his/her own body. What is it about this that you are incapable of understanding? Silk Road made the procurement of drugs safer, more enjoyable, and less expensive for users. THAT is what made it an invaluable service.

Glad you ignored my utter destruction of your pathetic and paternalistic arguments as well. Suppose you can't keep repeating the same nonsensical garble for ever, or can you?
Why are you so angry? You two are arguing and PTiddy is giving his thoughts, and you are giving yours plus ten insults every time. In real life i very much doubt you'd call him so many names in a discussion. I just don't get it, it's just very rude.

I'm really glad most of these drugs are illegal, people have trouble getting their hands on a lot of them and still manage to **** their lives up massively with them. I can't see how them being legal and cheaper would make things better.

[LJJ]

Silk Road made the procurement of drugs safer, more enjoyable, and less expensive for users. THAT is what made it an invaluable service.

I don't know about less expensive, but otherwise yeah.

The Silk Road provided a trustworthy store for drugs while making virtually impossible for children under 18 or irresponsible addicts to get drugs. Even most opposers of illegal drug use would find it an acceptable way to distribute the stuff. I guess that's also the reason why it became so big without getting shut down in the first place, the owner of the site really just made a couple of dumb mistakes to cause the shutdown.

[LJJ]

most def less expensive.

Maybe it's because I live in a country with a very inexpensive drug market, but price is definitely the reason I never made use of the site.

[-p.tiddy-]

Why are you so angry? You two are arguing and PTiddy is giving his thoughts, and you are giving yours plus ten insults every time. In real life i very much doubt you'd call him so many names in a discussion. I just don't get it, it's just very rude.

I'm really glad most of these drugs are illegal, people have trouble getting their hands on a lot of them and still manage to **** their lives up massively with them. I can't see how them being legal and cheaper would make things better.
he is obvioulsy very young, and yes in real life he would address me as "sir" :oldlol: ...on ISH he is free to throw in 10 insults per post though

when he grows up a bit he will lose his passion for drug legalization...I had his views in my 20s...my parents had his views when they were hippys...he will grow out of it as well (if he grows up that is)

[LJJ]

you live in Holland? the weed prices were bout the same, but the hard stuff was waaay cheaper than out here.

Yeah. Any drugs I'm interested in (essentially weed, E, MDMA, acid) are cheap here anyway. Cheaper than the price of a drink at a club.

[-p.tiddy-]

I'm literally in tears from some of p. tiddys posts "Alcohol and tobacco are impossible to make illegal"


:roll:
in the US it certainly is...we have tried with alcohol and it didn't work

are you laughing because you think we easily could?

[Scoooter]

-p. tiddy-, what do you think "illegal" means? There seems to be some fundamental confusion there.

[-p.tiddy-]

-p. tiddy-, what do you think "illegal" means? There seems to be some fundamental confusion there.
as in against the law to sell/consume/possess/etc...what coke and heroine is NOW in the US

as far as I am aware, there is not a single country on the planet where tobacco smoking is completely illegal

it looks as though alcohol is illegal in some of the middle east though...I wonder how that is working out for them

[-p.tiddy-]

il

[Scoooter]

What then is your definition for successful illegality? You keep bringing that up.

[-p.tiddy-]

What then is your definition for successful illegality? You keep bringing that up.

where the majority are happy with it as is for a long period of time...

very extreme example, hand grenades are illegal and have been for a long time, and the majority of us are happy with it that way...that would be successful illegality IMO

[The_Yearning]

Wait a minute... Is that $2.32 for 100 valium? That is insane. You could make thousands and thousands of dollars just piecing those things out for $2-$3 each on any college campus in America.

Whatchu know about dat?

[Dresta]

Why are you so angry? You two are arguing and PTiddy is giving his thoughts, and you are giving yours plus ten insults every time. In real life i very much doubt you'd call him so many names in a discussion. I just don't get it, it's just very rude.

I'm really glad most of these drugs are illegal, people have trouble getting their hands on a lot of them and still manage to **** their lives up massively with them. I can't see how them being legal and cheaper would make things better.I'm not particularly angry, i just call out blatant ignorance and stupidity when i see it. It is not my fault that p.tiddy holds viewpoints so lacking in logical congruity that they could only be held by an imbecile.

The person who says things like 'i'm glad lots of people are getting killed because it makes me feel safer knowing people cannot do things i don't approve of' and 'it's a pity alcohol and tobacco are impossible to make illegal or i'd ban them too' and 'who cares if it's unconstitutional?' deserve to be ridiculed. But then i would expect you to defend him, because you are evidently uninformed about the matter yourself.

Case in point: your belief that people have 'trouble' getting their hands on drugs. Well, dealers are easy enough to find, and you can get from many of them just about anything you want delivered to your doorstep. It is not drugs that are hard to get hold of, it is finding good quality drugs that is the problem (and i assure you, decent gear is much much safer than the adulterated garbage many people use). Then other problems come when the inflated prices cause people who are addicted to not by able to buy the product they are addicted to: this is when people turn to crime in desperation to fund their habit, to the cost of everyone else, or when they turn to other means of acquiring money such as prostitution. But i bet you're 'really glad' about all this too huh?

The vast majority of drug users are not problem users: this has been proven. The drug war has eroded both people's liberty and security - in what world can this be accepted as ok? A world of pliable fools is answer.


he is obvioulsy very young, and yes in real life he would address me as "sir" :oldlol: ...on ISH he is free to throw in 10 insults per post though

when he grows up a bit he will lose his passion for drug legalization...I had his views in my 20s...my parents had his views when they were hippys...he will grow out of it as well (if he grows up that is)Ah yes, everyone who has a contrasting opinion to yours on this matter simply isn't 'grown up.' That's despite the fact that the vast majority of neuropharmocologists and economists are opposed to the drug war, stressing that it doesn't make sense scientifically, and doesn't work economically.

Even old William Buckley, the dragon of American conservatism came to trenchantly oppose the drug war once he saw the effects it had:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTyucBinXnY

And i don't address anyone 'sir', nor could i ever respect anyone as clearly illiterate and ignorant as you are, in 'real life' as well as on the internet (which is also 'real life' btw).


Maybe it's because I live in a country with a very inexpensive drug market, but price is definitely the reason I never made use of the site.
Weed was slightly more expensive, though you could always get good shit; most other things were cheaper, some far cheaper. (compared with UK market)

[Scoooter]

where the majority are happy with it as is for a long period of time...

very extreme example, hand grenades are illegal and have been for a long time, and the majority of us are happy with it that way...that would be successful illegality IMO
And in this vein you consider America's "War on Drugs" to be a success.

[-p.tiddy-]

That's despite the fact that the vast majority of neuropharmocologists and economists are opposed to the drug war, stressing that it doesn't make sense scientifically, and doesn't work economically.

do you have reference for that claim?

I won't dismiss it like you do every time I show you proof...

also I am not sure what "makes sense scientifically" even means...the legality of drugs is a political issue, not a scientific issue...there is no scientific factual "right or wrong" here...only opinions.

[-p.tiddy-]

And in this vein you consider America's "War on Drugs" to be a success.
there are many facets to the "war on drugs" that can be improved upon but I prefer it to letting dealers do free business

I'm not sure I would call it a "success"...I compared this to abortion earlier in that every "solution" looks bad, you are just picking the lesser of two evils.

[niko]

I'm not particularly angry, i just call out blatant ignorance and stupidity when i see it. It is not my fault that p.tiddy holds viewpoints so lacking in logical congruity that they could only be held by an imbecile.

The person who says things like 'i'm glad lots of people are getting killed because it makes me feel safer knowing people cannot do things i don't approve of' and 'it's a pity alcohol and tobacco are impossible to make illegal or i'd ban them too' and 'who cares if it's unconstitutional?' deserve to be ridiculed. But then i would expect you to defend him, because you are evidently uninformed about the matter yourself.

Case in point: your belief that people have 'trouble' getting their hands on drugs. Well, dealers are easy enough to find, and you can get from many of them just about anything you want delivered to your doorstep. It is not drugs that are hard to get hold of, it is finding good quality drugs that is the problem (and i assure you, decent gear is much much safer than the adulterated garbage many people use). Then other problems come when the inflated prices cause people who are addicted to not by able to buy the product they are addicted to: this is when people turn to crime in desperation to fund their habit, to the cost of everyone else, or when they turn to other means of acquiring money such as prostitution. But i bet you're 'really glad' about all this too huh?

The vast majority of drug users are not problem users: this has been proven. The drug war has eroded both people's liberty and security - in what world can this be accepted as ok? A world of pliable fools is answer.

Ah yes, everyone who has a contrasting opinion to yours on this matter simply isn't 'grown up.' That's despite the fact that the vast majority of neuropharmocologists and economists are opposed to the drug war, stressing that it doesn't make sense scientifically, and doesn't work economically.

Even old William Buckley, the dragon of American conservatism came to trenchantly oppose the drug war once he saw the effects it had:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTyucBinXnY

And i don't address anyone 'sir', nor could i ever respect anyone as clearly illiterate and ignorant as you are, in 'real life' as well as on the internet (which is also 'real life' btw).


Weed was slightly more expensive, though you could always get good shit; most other things were cheaper, some far cheaper. (compared with UK market)

Drugs are possible to find, yes. I've found them myself. But they are not "easy" to find, and this fact turns away a lot of people. Determined people will find yes. People won't experiment as easily though. Look at the drugs that had the worse epidemics in NY, like crack. It's because it was extremely easy to find and afford. I don't see the benefit of a person trying to experiment knowing exactly where and how to get cocaine. If you decide "id like to try it" there is still enough time to think about it, you have to find it, if you've never tried it you'll be worried about police, bad drugs, etc. This eliminates a lot of the entry barriers to experimentation. I don't like it and fortunately, it's not happening.

And note: you called him an imbecile again, the e-tough calling people stupid because you don't like their opinion makes me doubt the veracity of much of what you say - i've never found someone I thought was worth listening to who starts every sentence with YOU ARE STUPID BECAUSE YOU DISAGREE WITH ME.

[Dresta]

Drugs are possible to find, yes. I've found them myself. But they are not "easy" to find, and this fact turns away a lot of people. Determined people will find yes. People won't experiment as easily though. Look at the drugs that had the worse epidemics in NY, like crack. It's because it was extremely easy to find and afford. I don't see the benefit of a person trying to experiment knowing exactly where and how to get cocaine. If you decide "id like to try it" there is still enough time to think about it, you have to find it, if you've never tried it you'll be worried about police, bad drugs, etc. This eliminates a lot of the entry barriers to experimentation. I don't like it and fortunately, it's not happening.

And note: you called him an imbecile again, the e-tough calling people stupid because you don't like their opinion makes me doubt the veracity of much of what you say - i've never found someone I thought was worth listening to who starts every sentence with YOU ARE STUPID BECAUSE YOU DISAGREE WITH ME.Sorry, but crack is a product of the drug war. As is methamphetamine and the widespread use of intravenous heroin.

Holding an opinion that runs contrary to the facts because of blind dogmatism is stupid. Calling someone stupid is not 'e-tough' whatever that means. You have no reason or logic behind your argument, which boils down to little more than 'i want drugs to remain illegal because i don't understand them and they scare me. i don't want to see them and can afford to live in a neighbourhood where i'm not affected by repressive drug policy, so i don't care: as long as my kids are safe who cares what's happening to all those people living in crime haven created by the drug war?'

Masses of people who have never done anything wrong are suffering on a daily basis because of people like you, and i have no hesitation in calling you a selfish turd because of it, as it is a fully justified insult when confronting someone that holds the opinions you do.

[niko]

Sorry, but crack is a product of the drug war. As is methamphetamine and the widespread use of intravenous heroin.

Holding an opinion that runs contrary to the facts because of blind dogmatism is stupid. Calling someone stupid is not 'e-tough' whatever that means. You have no reason or logic behind your argument, which boils down to little more than 'i want drugs to remain illegal because i don't understand them and they scare me. i don't want to see them and can afford to live in a neighbourhood where i'm not affected by repressive drug policy, so i don't care: as long as my kids are safe who cares what's happening to all those people living in crime haven created by the drug war?'

Masses of people who have never done anything wrong are suffering on a daily basis because of people like you, and i have no hesitation in calling you a selfish turd because of it, as it is a fully justified insult when confronting someone that holds the opinions you do.
Calling someone stupid is e-tough. In person you don't start a argument with "you imbecile". You have no hesitation calling anyone anything because it's anonymous on a message board. It's ridiculous.

[Dresta]

do you have reference for that claim?

I won't dismiss it like you do every time I show you proof...

also I am not sure what "makes sense scientifically" even means...the legality of drugs is a political issue, not a scientific issue...there is no scientific factual "right or wrong" here...only opinions.lol at you thinking you've shown proof of anything.

Harvard Economist:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/harvard-economist-jeffrey-miron-on-why-drugs-should-be-legalized-a-886289.html#js-article-comments-box-pager

A good outline of why the war will always fail:

http://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2013/Powelldrugs.html

A survey from 1995 (since then i think you would admit there has been a large swing against the drug war):

http://mises.org/journals/scholar/thornton3.pdf

conclusion being: 'I am comfortable saying that economists who think enough about drug policy to publish (and hence be accountable for) judgments on the topic largely point in the liberalization direction.'

and

'The general consensus that does exist among drug policy researchers and economists as a whole could be characterised as anti-prohibition...' (can't copy and paste from it for some reason so not gonna write down more).

And things have progressed massively since 1995. The Economist is also currently a big supporter of drug legalisation.

It is very rare these days to find an economist who writes about the drug war that does not favour decriminalization at the very least.

The point is that the drug classifications don't make any sense scientifically and are wholly arbitrary and formed through misconception and propaganda.

Two neuroscientists explaining how prohibition has stifled scientific research:

http://download.cell.com/current-biology/pdf/PIIS096098221300835X.pdf?intermediate=true

http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/newsandeventspggrp/imperialcollege/newssummary/news_11-6-2013-10-58-52

And another neuroscientist on futility of the drug war and the misconceptions about drugs that fuel it:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/31/carl-hart-high-price_n_3355555.html

'If people come away with one thing from your book, what should it be?

I would hope they seriously look at the way we are regulating drugs and punishing people, and I hope they come away thinking this is so unfair and this is so un-American. ... They [can] say it's unfair and now they have science, evidence to support it and not just somebody tugging at their heart, but they have somebody tugging at their head as well.'

[Dresta]

Calling someone stupid is e-tough. In person you don't start a argument with "you imbecile". You have no hesitation calling anyone anything because it's anonymous on a message board. It's ridiculous.
Cry me a ****ing river.

I didn't start the argument with 'you imbecile' - that clearly came later. And yes, in face-to-face situations i have frequently called people imbeciles and other derogatory words relating to their intelligence.

I am getting plenty of fully anonymous insults sent my way such as 'drug taking ****' etc. All of which wonderfully demonstrate the irrational hatred of many who take p.diddy's and your position; but you don't see me bitching and moaning about it (well, until now, and i certainly won't be bringing it up again).

[clipse026]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Dresta again.
:applause:

[clipse026]

PT with the anonymous neg. :lol

[Scoooter]

there are many facets to the "war on drugs" that can be improved upon but I prefer it to letting dealers do free business

I'm not sure I would call it a "success"...I compared this to abortion earlier in that every "solution" looks bad, you are just picking the lesser of two evils.
I don't think anyone would advocate for "free business". Taxes and regulations - of the sort we attach to legal drugs like alcohol and and tobacco and prescription drugs - would almost certainly be enacted.

What aspects of the war on drugs do you find particularly bothersome?

[-p.tiddy-]

Dresta all you did was post a few individual write ups. That isn't evidence that the "vast majority" of economists want legalization for everything... And being opposed to the current policies is not the same as wanting heroin and acid sold over the counter. Do you have any legit surveys?

Clipse I just negged you twice and signed both lol

Uterus yes I negged you earlier, obviously the post I negged was a direct insult to me...it needed no sig

Scooter I went over taxing earlier, currently tobacco booz and prescription drugs cost us far more tax dollars than they bring in.

Issues I have with the current set up? Off the top of my head

-POT SHOULD BE LEGAL...hell if that happened I think it would make just about everyone happy to the point of no more fussing. I don't think for a second that most people are extremists like Dresta who want coke heroin acid and everything else available over the counter.

-more funding should go toward drug education, education is key

-less punishment for users, more for sellers...although if you get caught with kilos you usually get decent punishment. But our jails shouldn't be occupied with common users.

[Dresta]

Dresta all you did was post a few individual write ups. That isn't evidence that the "vast majority" of economists want legalization for everything... And being opposed to the current policies is not the same as wanting heroin and acid sold over the counter. Do you have any legit surveys?

-POT SHOULD BE LEGAL...hell if that happened I think it would make just about everyone happy to the point of no more fussing. I don't think for a second that most people are extremists like Dresta who want coke heroin acid and everything else available over the counter.

-more funding should go toward drug education, education is key

-less punishment for users, more for sellers...although if you get caught with kilos you usually get decent punishment. But our jails shouldn't be occupied with common users.I posted a survey and quoted directly from it; it isn't my fault you were too blind to see it. And i didn't say the consensus was that everything needed to be legalised (though The Economist and many prominent economists advocate this view), but that prohibition was a failure and that things needed to move in the other direction - drug liberalisation, so to speak. And there aren't any recent surveys, why would there be? A large proportion of economists are too specialised for anyone to care what they think about drugs. My only point in bringing that up was that you said no one that hadn't grown up could view legalisation to be the best available option, when in fact, many prominent and highly intelligent individuals ascribed to this view (including a number of nobel laureates).

So you're effectively arguing for decriminalisation then? Yet earlier you were trying to argue the need to forcefully protect people from themselves and that it'd be better if alcohol and tobacco could be banned. You are so full of contradictions and logical inconsistencies that it defies belief that you can be so certain about what you preach.

Do you mean proper education or just more propaganda like what has been shoved down people's throats for decades now? There is a difference between attempting to scare people into obedience (the intelligent ones won't believe it btw) and properly educating people about the facts.

All these naturally produced drugs (opiates, cocaine, cannabis etc.) have been around for a long time, and were available to buy over the counter, resulting in far, far fewer problems than they cause today (and much less widespread use). You still haven't been able to answer why this is if these drugs are so dangerous that they instantly ruin everyone's lives.

And what is your deal with acid? You keep placing it up there with coke and heroin when it isn't in the same league of potential harmfulness. The only reason you think it is so dangerous is because you have never used it, don't understand it, and have been brainwashed by the state:

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/49735000/gif/_49735645_drugs_comparisons_464gr.gif

As you can see it's harm is way way down at the bottom, below even your beloved 'pot' - which is apparently so special in being the only harmless drug. Your opinions on drugs simply are not supported by the evidence.

[BRabbiT]

[QUOTE]
screenshot of an Independence day post from Ulbricht

[-p.tiddy-]

Wow that chart is just flat out erong. Pot is more harmful than benzos? In what fckin universe? People die mixing benzos with booz regularly...benzos are extremely addictive and one of the only drugs that can kill you on withdraw.

And Dresta you have me pegged COMPLETELY wrong. I'm not a choir boy. I have been in and out of jail over a dozen times for drugs and alcohol. I've been to rehab. I'm an alcoholic. I've done more than my share of LSD. I yhink that LSD is more harmful than pot BECAUSE IT IS.

Meanwhile I have you pegged spot on...you are ME in my young 20s. Young, overly passionate for the wrong reasons (because you just like drugs), cocky, etc

[clipse026]

2 negs just for agreeing with the guy :lol. At least you signed them this time.

[niko]

Nice how you e-toughs send racist negs (anonymous too) about my wife, etc. It's what i said, e-tough. You have some real mental problems, is people disagreeing with you in an online discussion mean you've made enemies? WTF is wrong with you?

[clipse026]

Nice how you e-toughs send racist negs (anonymous too) about my wife, etc. It's what i said, e-tough. You have some real mental problems, is people disagreeing with you in an online discussion mean you've made enemies? WTF is wrong with you?
That's ****ed up:wtf:

[niko]

That's ****ed up:wtf:
People are really strange. They are really really angry over an online discussion. It's not like at the end of this discussion we implement what wins. it makes no sense at all.

[clipse026]

I disagree with both you and PT but that's going a bit too far.

[Dresta]

Wow that chart is just flat out erong. Pot is more harmful than benzos? In what fckin universe? People die mixing benzos with booz regularly...benzos are extremely addictive and one of the only drugs that can kill you on withdraw.

And Dresta you have me pegged COMPLETELY wrong. I'm not a choir boy. I have been in and out of jail over a dozen times for drugs and alcohol. I've been to rehab. I'm an alcoholic. I've done more than my share of LSD. I yhink that LSD is more harmful than pot BECAUSE IT IS.

Meanwhile I have you pegged spot on...you are ME in my young 20s. Young, overly passionate for the wrong reasons (because you just like drugs), cocky, etcIt doesn't say pot is more harmful than benzos: if you'd look at the 'harm to users' category you'd see that the harm is lower than for benzos. The study is about drugs used independently, so whether people die taking it with booze is irrelevant. And the thing that sets benzo's lower than they otherwise would be is that you can take them and function pretty normally in your life. The definition of a person with a drug problem being someone who has to make changes to his regular life as a result of drug use. You mention the dangers of those withdrawals (which is very true) but the drugs illegality has forced many people to suffer horrific withdrawals due to reliance on GP prescriptions:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1368666/Misery-tranquilliser-addicts-forced-cold-turkey-GPs.html

It seems you have had an addiction problem rather than a drug problem, but that is the result of compulsive behaviour (this really requires good psychiatric help to deal with) rather than the pernicious effects of drugs.

About acid: well that is what you think, but that was the most detailed study done as to the harms of drugs, and previous studies have ranked acid lower or in the same kind of region of harmfulness as cannabis. I have personally seen plenty of people throw their lives away through chronic cannabis use and end up depressed, miserable and incapable of giving it up. But though i have witnessed a few people having bad trips, i have never seen anyone ruin their lives through use of acid. And part of what allows people to get sucked in so easily to problems with cannabis is the false belief that it is the one drug without any real danger. It is simply not true.

And you are wrong that the only reason i am passionate is because i like drugs. The only drugs i have taken in the past year are cannabis and codeine (bought legally in UK). I am passionate about it because it is a gross injustice perpetuated by ignorance.


Nice how you e-toughs send racist negs (anonymous too) about my wife, etc. It's what i said, e-tough. You have some real mental problems, is people disagreeing with you in an online discussion mean you've made enemies? WTF is wrong with you?
lol, it certainly wasn't me considering i'm not even aware of what ethnicity you are. But why do people on here know about your wife anyhow? That shit should be kept private man.

I will neg you now just to prove it because you seem to be implying it was me as you were earlier calling me 'e-tough.'

[niko]

It doesn't say pot is more harmful than benzos: if you'd look at the 'harm to users' category you'd see that the harm is lower for benzos. The study is about drugs used independently, so whether people die taking it with booze is irrelevant. And the thing that sets benzo's lower than they otherwise would be is that you can take them and function pretty normally in your life. The definition of a person with a drug problem being someone who has to make changes to his regular life as a result of drug use. You mention the dangers of those withdrawals (which is very true) but the drugs illegality has forced many people to suffer horrific withdrawals due to reliance on GP prescriptions:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1368666/Misery-tranquilliser-addicts-forced-cold-turkey-GPs.html

It seems you have had an addiction problem rather than a drug problem, but that is the result of compulsive behaviour (this really requires good psychiatric help to deal with) rather than the pernicious effects of drugs.

About acid: well that is what you think, but that was the most detailed study done as to the harms of drugs, and previous studies have ranked acid lower or in the same kind of region of harmfulness as cannabis. I have personally seen plenty of people throw their lives away through chronic cannabis use and end up depressed, miserable and incapable of giving it up. But though i have witnessed a few people having bad trips, i have never seen anyone ruin their lives through use of acid. And part of what allows people to get sucked in so easily to problems with cannabis is the false belief that it is the one drug without any real danger. It is simply not true.

And you are wrong that the only reason i am passionate is because i like drugs. The only drugs i have taken in the past year are cannabis and codeine (bought legally in UK). I am passionate about it because it is a gross injustice perpetuate by ignorance.


lol, it certainly wasn't me considering i'm not even aware of what ethnicity you are. But why do people on here know about your wife anyhow? That shit should be kept private man.

I will neg you now just to prove it because you seem to be implying it was me as you were earlier calling me 'e-tough.'
I don't think it was you but you and I don't see why saying my wife is japanese means I should get racial insults, sorry.

[Dresta]

I don't think it was you but you and I don't see why saying my wife is japanese means I should get racial insults, sorry.
Of course it doesn't. I didn't even know that was what it was.

I misread your post actually as 'racist comments' about you and insults about your wife, which made me assume you'd divulged some kind of personal information about her (obviously something that should never be done over internet), not just said she was Japanese.

My bad.

[niko]

Of course it doesn't. I didn't even know that was what it was.

I misread your post actually as 'racist comments' about you and insults about your wife, which made me assume you'd divulged some kind of personal information about her (obviously something that should never be done over internet), not just said she was Japanese.

My bad.
no need, it's some random shmuck who posted it. Yeah, i never say anything personal, just "we go to japan because my wife is japanese". So many people use the net to vent out secret racial hatreds and such. Very strange. Such is life...

I shall remove myself from the argument as it's much too technical and I have no desire to research it enough to partake when there is still light outside.

[The_Yearning]

no need, it's some random shmuck who posted it. Yeah, i never say anything personal, just "we go to japan because my wife is japanese". So many people use the net to vent out secret racial hatreds and such. Very strange. Such is life...

I shall remove myself from the argument as it's much too technical and I have no desire to research it enough to partake when there is still light outside.

Damn you sound bitchmade as fvck...

[Budadiiii]

Damn you sound bitchmade as fvck...
He's been through a lot in his life. I don't think people have treated him well or fairly throughout it, for reasons I can't answer but could probably give a pretty could guess as to why.. but I won't get into that.

Physiologically fragile and overly sensitive to what he considers to be harsh or out of the ordinary in social interactions.

Just let it be. He's a good guy. Just a little out of touch.

[niko]

He's been through a lot in his life. I don't think people have treated him well or fairly throughout it, for reasons I can't answer but could probably give a pretty could guess as to why.. but I won't get into that.

Physiologically fragile and overly sensitive to what he considers to be harsh or out of the ordinary in social interactions.

Just let it be. He's a good guy. Just a little out of touch.

No no, please get into it. I need the help. Please...help me...

[HarryCallahan]

You're going to be alright niko, budadii is here.

[Take Your Lumps]

Listen...p-time's heart is in the right place...please think of the children and all that.

But what people like him don't realize is that you absolutely cannot legislate morality. That stuff starts at home - you bring your kids up the best you can and you hope they make the best choice for themselves.

People who want to do drugs will find ways to get drugs. Kids who are curious about drugs will do drugs. What is the point of putting folks through the legal system for a personal choice they have made to place a substance inside of their body? Whether it's coke, pot, lsd, or clorox bleach is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

If you want to curb overall drug use (especially harder drugs), your only route is EDUCATION -- not LEGISLATION.

Ask yourself who is profiting from this black market drug trade. Would you not rather your state receive this inevitable source of income and have users get their drugs in a safer environment?

I believe all drugs should be legal to ingest -- not because I want to go on a bender with some hookers but because attempting to ban their use is a ridiculously futile exercise at best.

Read up on Portugal:
Ten Years After Decriminalization, Drug Abuse Down by Half in Portugal (http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/07/05/ten-years-after-decriminalization-drug-abuse-down-by-half-in-portugal/)


Drug warriors often contend that drug use would skyrocket if we were to legalize or decriminalize drugs in the United States. Fortunately, we have a real-world example of the actual effects of ending the violent, expensive War on Drugs and replacing it with a system of treatment for problem users and addicts.

Ten years ago, Portugal decriminalized all drugs. One decade after this unprecedented experiment, drug abuse is down by half.

The number of addicts considered “problematic” — those who repeatedly use “hard” drugs and intravenous users — had fallen by half since the early 1990s, when the figure was estimated at around 100,000 people, Goulao said.

Other factors had also played their part however, Goulao, a medical doctor added.

“This development can not only be attributed to decriminalisation but to a confluence of treatment and risk reduction policies.”

Many of these innovative treatment procedures would not have emerged if addicts had continued to be arrested and locked up rather than treated by medical experts and psychologists. Currently 40,000 people in Portugal are being treated for drug abuse. This is a far cheaper, far more humane way to tackle the problem. Rather than locking up 100,000 criminals, the Portuguese are working to cure 40,000 patients and fine-tuning a whole new canon of drug treatment knowledge at the same time.

None of this is possible when waging a war.

You yourself said you've had your share of issues with alcohol and drugs in the past...does this not sound like a more constructive way to treat drug users as opposed to the status quo?

[HarryCallahan]

Listen...p-time's heart is in the right place...please think of the children and all that.

But what people like him don't realize is that you absolutely cannot legislate morality. That stuff starts at home - you bring your kids up the best you can and you hope they make the best choice for themselves.

People who want to do drugs will find ways to get drugs. Kids who are curious about drugs will do drugs. What is the point of putting folks through the legal system for a personal choice they have made to place a substance inside of their body? Whether it's coke, pot, lsd, or clorox bleach is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

If you want to curb overall drug use (especially harder drugs), your only route is EDUCATION -- not LEGISLATION.

Ask yourself who is profiting from this black market drug trade. Would you not rather your state receive this inevitable source of income and have users get their drugs in a safer environment?

I believe all drugs should be legal to ingest -- not because I want to go on a bender with some hookers but because attempting to ban their use is a ridiculously futile exercise at best.


Good post, but no- I don't want the state to get that money. They're like homeless people, you give them money and they're just going to start a war with it.

[Take Your Lumps]

Good post, but no- I don't want the state to get that money. They're like homeless people, you give them money and they're just going to start a war with it.

You do what Colorado did. You earmark the first $40 million in revenue every year for the public school capital construction assistance fund (http://www.cde.state.co.us/cdefinance/capconstmain).

I know trust in government is at an all time low but unlike faceless corporations -- at the end of the day, states are people.

[HarryCallahan]

You do what Colorado did. You earmark the first $40 million in revenue every year for the public school capital construction assistance fund (http://www.cde.state.co.us/cdefinance/capconstmain).

I know trust in government is at an all time low but unlike faceless corporations -- at the end of the day, states are people.

:biggums:

[BRabbiT]

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/70475000/jpg/_70475253_hood.jpg
[QUOTE]
[B][SIZE="3"]Dennis Lehane To Adapt

[BRabbiT]

http://media.komonews.com/images/131003_steven_sadler.jpg



New court records show that Silk Road was finally shut down after the sites top dealer began secretly cooperating with FBI agents.

Steven Sadler, who operated under the username 'Nod' was ranked in the 'top 1% of sellers' on Silk Road and provided his customers with wholesale shipments of drugs - sent through the US Postal Service.

Sadler, who is a drug addict, agreed to work with federal investigators when his Bellevue, Seattle home was raided on July 31st by Homeland Security who seized heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamine, a .45 caliber pistol, cash, and 'vacuum and heat-sealing equipment'.



While the details of Sadler's cooperation were not clear, it is thought that he would have provided federal agents customer lists, or financial records and possibly confirmed the identity of Ulbricht - as part of their case against him.

Ulbricht appeared in court in San Francisco in early October, where he denied all charges against him, after the nearly two-year-long investigation, which was finally cracked with the help of Sadler.

While the details of Sadler's cooperation were not clear, it is thought that he would have provided federal agents customer lists, or financial records and possibly confirmed the identity of Ulbricht - as part of their case against him.

[QUOTE]
Federal agents arrested Sadler after he was tracked for one year after investigators honed in on him and a female friend, Jenna M. White.

A complaint filed in federal court in Seattle says investigators identified Sadler and White after asking postal clerks in SeaTac to be on the lookout for a woman identified in surveillance video as being associated with certain suspect packages.

One clerk managed to get the license plate of her car, which authorities said they traced to Sadler and White's condominium in Bellevue.

Sadler and White allegedly used up to 40 different post offices to distribute their narcotics across the country.

Despite apparently aiding authorities, Steven Lloyd Sadler of Bellevue and Jenna M. White of Renton have both been released from custody pending court appearances later this month.

The raid on Wednesday was not the first time the U.S. government has made arrests related to Silk Road.

Earlier this year, authorities in South Carolina arrested Eric Daniel Hughes, known on Silk Road as 'Casey Jones', and charged him in state court with drug possession. The Drug Enforcement Agency seized units of bitcoin, which Hughes allegedly used to purchase drugs from the online market.
link (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2471343/How-drug-dealer-dark-nets-Silk-Road-working-FBI-months-huge-bust.html)
[QUOTE]

[LJJ]

The Silk Road is back in business boys! (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-24842410) Time to score some big shipments while you still can.

(Totally not operated by the CIA, promise)

[BRabbiT]

[QUOTE]
.....Etay Maor, a fraud prevention manager with security firm Trusteer, and an expert on the dark net, said it was anyone's guess how long it would last.

"It could be 24 hours or it could be a year."

But with the Silk Road banking over $1.3bn (