Silk Road Shut Down, Founder Arrested, $3.6M Bitcoins Seized

[NettiWelho]

You don't seem to get it. Less harmful alternatives exist.

No, they dont.

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2 ... -americans


Wikipedia - Category:Psychoactive drugs harm diagrams and charts

Does that look like the laws are in line with the harms? Keep in mind harsh penalties have not been shown to diminish drug usage rates.

Alcohol causes more harm than Cannabis, LSD, n,n-DMT, MDMA, Psilocybin etc. combined, in total and per user.

The substances of course physically exist but are not legally available in reasonable prices.

The current substance scheduling is fucked up. The safest alternatives are harsly penalized creating artificial scarcity and ones legally available are some of the most dangerous out there.

[Alyeska]

I never said the current system was any good. So don't go putting words in my mouth. But your idea of legalizing everything is just as bad.

[NettiWelho]

I never said the current system was any good. So don't go putting words in my mouth. But your idea of legalizing everything is just as bad.

May I know then what you mean by less harmful alternatives existing(alcohol is pretty serious business) and me not getting it? I am recommending actual safe alternatives at prices that can drive organized crime out of business by simply bleeding out their profit margin.

Changes that would result in both social, health and economic net gains.

[Alyeska]

I never said the current system was any good. So don't go putting words in my mouth. But your idea of legalizing everything is just as bad.

May I know then what you mean by less harmful alternatives existing(alcohol is pretty serious business) and me not getting it? I am recommending actual safe alternatives at prices that can drive organized crime out of business by simply bleeding out their profit margin.

Changes that would result in both social, health and economic net gains.

You are advocating to fully legalize the shit. There is no safe alternative. Some drugs have no redeeming qualities what so ever. And people still take the shit. When confronted about that, you said they would invent a new drug that does the same thing only safer. It doesn't fucking work that way.

Safer alternatives did not refer to drugs. It refereed to OPTIONS. Such as decriminalization and regulation. But that is not the same thing as legalization.

[Napoleon the Clown]

Netti, how the hell is making it legal gonna stop people from overdosing? I can see an argument regarding disease transmission, but to say that it could possibly reduce how often people OD is a pretty big claim. Addicts aren't known for deciding to follow the directions on how much to use in a specified time frame.

If all the drugs were regulated the same way as alcohol all drugs would come eitheir pure or diluted with a safe substance and packaged in single use sizes. Information about the drug and its dangers as well as consumption and/or dosage recommendations and other harm reduction could be done.

Just because you can kill yourself with it does not mean its dangerous. You can kill yourself with drinking too much water, or vodka.

What matters is can it kill you accidentally just because its impure or measurement error while dosing OR entire another substance than advertized. Such worries are mostly gone with proper regulation and safety.

You don't have much personal experience with people who have become addicted to a substance, do you? Addicts aren't known for following the suggested usage. It's why alcoholics tend to drink so much. They keep feeling the need for more, more, more. Eventually the body's ability to keep basic functions going will be lower than the threshold for getting that sweet high or what have you.

Dilute a drug and people will just take more doses. Give an alcoholic beer and he'll just drink the six pack in one go and ask for more. People OD on legal stuff with very clear instructions all the fucking time because A. lots of people don't read the damn instructions and B. addicts ignore the instructions. There's also losing all track of when your last dose was. Your little chart there beautifully demonstrates that simply being legal doesn't mean people will be responsible about it.

Now, legalization and regulation can lead to less nasty shit being in the mix with it. But that doesn't change how addictive crack cocaine is.

Any drop in overdose rate could potentially be offset (or more than offset) by a possible increase in people who decide to give it a whirl. And some substances are so horrifically addictive that one go is enough to get you addicted. Opiates get you hooked fucking fast, as an example.

Other drugs are severely damaging by their very nature. Even very pure meth, when smoked, will cause damage to the teeth and gums because it's an acidic smoke. It isn't some harmless high. And it isn't known for promoting good oral hygiene.

Some drugs are just bad. There is no safe dose. There may be doses that are unlikely to kill you, but good luck keeping at that dose. We restrict how much you can get at once for pain killers for a reason. Give an addict 100 doses of a barbiturate and there's a very good chance that a week later you'll have a dead addict on your hands. There's a good reason to restrict how much of certain substances a person can readily obtain.


Now, pot? As I stated, no way in hell someone's gonna OD on that. Only way you could possibly OD on THC is if you either had a ridiculously potent oral source and took a fuckload of it or you injected it into your veins. Smoking/vaporising it? Physically impossible to OD like that. Which is why I am of the opinion it should be legalized and treated much like alcohol is. Someone drives on it, DUI. Etc. PCP? That shit is fucking evil. If the person who uses it has angered the Drug Reaction Gods they can go berserk. Though they are more likely to try to avoid any confrontation whatsoever. LSD? That stuff can make for a Very Bad Time and, in some people, has potential for long-lasting consequences. So if it's gonna get any sort of use it should be strictly controlled and used under supervision of someone who's got all the proper education. Example of a good use for LSD: Some studies have found it helps combat alcoholism better than basically anything. Not a high dose, mind. Other use it's been found to have: Incredible pain management. Sub-threshold dose has been demonstrated to control pain to impressive extremes.


Lifting all restrictions would be a bad idea simply because of addiction potential for some shit. Pot? It's got such a low risk for causing physical dependence that it isn't even worth worrying about. Some people grow quite fond of how they feel while high, though, but that isn't limited to pot. Cocaine? There's nothing it does that can't be done with other drugs that are far less addictive and generally safer. Heroin? No legitimate use, horrifically addictive, needles get expensive. Ketamine? Leave that for farm animals, we've got better stuff to sedate a person. I could go on if I wanted to wrack my brain for other drugs, but this should give an idea.

[Grumman]

If all the drugs were regulated the same way as alcohol all drugs would come eitheir pure or diluted with a safe substance and packaged in single use sizes.

No, not all. Even with alcohol, you still hear about the occasional death from methanol poisoning. And even if the sanctioned drugs are pure, there's still cheap DIY rubbish like krokodil, (and that's one that people only become stupid enough to try while under the influence of heroin).

[K. A. Pital]

"Occasional death" from alcoholism? Maybe in America. In Russia, where binge drinking is a national sport, people die from that shit all the time.

[Grumman]

"Occasional death" from alcoholism?

Methanol, not ethanol. Alcoholic drinks are supposed to contain only ethanol, but you still get cases of people being served alcoholic drinks contaminated with methanol.

[NettiWelho]

"Occasional death" from alcoholism?

Methanol, not ethanol. Alcoholic drinks are supposed to contain only ethanol, but you still get cases of people being served alcoholic drinks contaminated with methanol.

Methonal poisoning is by orders of magnitude more common under prohibition than under legalized & regulated schemes...

And even if the sanctioned drugs are pure, there's still cheap DIY rubbish like krokodil, (and that's one that people only become stupid enough to try while under the influence of heroin).

Krokodil is only in the existance because of the prohibition. Hardly a good example against ending prohibition.

[K. A. Pital]

As if people don't die from "normal" alcohol poisoning and heart attacks in Russia even without the methanol contamination factor... with it the deaths just multiply. And no, legalization after the 1985-1991 "prohibition" in Russia did not cause a decrease in methanol poisoning. If anything, there was an increase.

[NettiWelho]

As if people don't die from "normal" alcohol poisoning and heart attacks in Russia even without the methanol contamination factor... with it the deaths just multiply. And no, legalization after the 1985-1991 "prohibition" in Russia did not cause a decrease in methanol poisoning. If anything, there was an increase.

On re-read it appears the poisonings in the example I recalled were done on purpose.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_an ... s_war.html

Frustrated that people continued to consume so much alcohol even after it was banned, federal officials had decided to try a different kind of enforcement. They ordered the poisoning of industrial alcohols manufactured in the United States, products regularly stolen by bootleggers and resold as drinkable spirits. The idea was to scare people into giving up illicit drinking. Instead, by the time Prohibition ended in 1933, the federal poisoning program, by some estimates, had killed at least 10,000 people.

[Grumman]

Krokodil is only in the existance because of the prohibition. Hardly a good example against ending prohibition.

Krokodil is in existence because it is easier to come by than heroin, and because heroin makes people stupid enough to think that a short high followed by even worse withdrawal and melting the flesh off your bones is worth it at any price. Are you planning on subsidising the production of heroin to the point where it is cheaper than codine? Cheaper than matchsticks?

[NettiWelho]

Krokodil is only in the existance because of the prohibition. Hardly a good example against ending prohibition.

Krokodil is in existence because it is easier to come by than heroin, and because heroin makes people stupid enough to think that a short high followed by even worse withdrawal and melting the flesh off your bones is worth it at any price. Are you planning on subsidising the production of heroin to the point where it is cheaper than codine? Cheaper than matchsticks?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroin-assisted_treatment

Heroin assisted treatment, or diamorphine assisted treatment, refers to the prescribing of synthetic, injectable heroin to opiate addicts that do not benefit from or cannot tolerate treatment with one of the established drugs used in opiate replacement therapy like methadone or buprenorphine. For this group of patients, heroin assisted treatment has proven superior in improving their social and health situation, though more serious adverse events were found in the heroin group than the methadone group.[1] It has also been shown to save money, despite its high costs, as it significantly reduces costs incurred by trials, incarceration, health interventions and delinquency.[2]

Heroin assisted treatment is fully a part of the national health system in Switzerland, Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark and the United Kingdom. Additional trials are being carried out in Canada and Belgium.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2219559/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17602126
http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/SEN/Commi ... ucht-e.htm

Why not? If the net effects are a positive gain then the policy should be changed. The drug cartels incentive for violent action to secure trade would atrophy over night to a point where they'd become an irrelevance.

I have brought evidence for supporting ending prohibition, I have heard dissenting opinions but seen no evidence on why you people take the positions you do on this issue.

[Siege]

Combating drug usage is far more complex than either banning or legalizing. It's not just about availability or legality: tolerating use of softdrugs in The Netherlands lead to a decrease in cannabis usage and certainly to a significant reduction of general nuisance involved with drug use, but as Stas pointed out legalization of alcohol lead to an increase in consumption and problems in Russia. There's clearly a massive social factor involved: legalization of certain drugs combined with things like long-term anti-drug programs can decrease usage, but if people's socioeconomic circumstances are bleak enough they will invariably be more inclined to use drugs as an escape. So an approach that works in one situation might not work out in another. I know, it's shocking: it's almost like nations and societies are not all alike!

Frankly I think hard drugs are simply too addictive and too dangerous to legalize without incurring a massive cost to society. I suppose that since the War on Drugs has arguably resulted in the rise of extremely rich, powerful and violent drug cartels you could make the argument that the cost of legalizing hard drugs might be lower than that of continuing to allow the cartels to reap the benefits of illicit drug trade... But then it's probably not a good idea to reduce this problem to a false dillemma like that, there's other ways of combating the cartels, without affordable healthcare the cost of legal hard drugs is likely to go up massively, etc.

[energiewende]

Assuming this is a complete list, he never killed anyone to take their stuff or force them to do business with him, only to stop the government from sending him to the isolation unit of a supermax for the rest of his life (which is probably what will happen now).

Oh, OK, that's makes murder perfectly fine, then. Could you sound more like a fuckwit? Are you seriously justifying murder-for-hire on the basis that he wanted to avoid jail time?

Depends - what if he killed a Gestapo agent in a police state who was threatening to have him sent to supermax for distributing pro-democracy literature? At some point it becomes self-defence, and the justice of the law involved is what matters. I grant that drug laws are something of a gray area, but my intention isn't to defend his actions, rather to rebutt the point that this proves markets need regulation. Maybe they do, but here the only deaths were caused by trying to evade regulation. The market itself was internally self-regulating without deadly (or any?) violence. This is untrue of the physical illicit drug trade, which is why I'm not sure it was good strategy to close down the site.

He never "had" to kill anyone. No one forced him to do that. As you yourself pointed out, he has the wealth to flee to a country that does not extradite to the US. Sorry, no, murder is NOT OK.

He "had" to kill someone to 1. continue with his activities (ie. operate the market) and 2. avoid death or fate-worse-than-death at the hands of the regulatory authorities. So from the PoV of the survival of the market, he had to do it.

I agree that living abroad was a better move but bear in mind that the handful of tolerable non-US extradition treaty countries often have their own penalties for dealing drugs that are even worse than those in the US.

Most drug-related deaths are caused by the distributors and customers being idiots who don't know how to play by the rules,

Please provide a cite that the majority of drug-related deaths are due to murders during transactions as opposed to overdose or diseases associated with drug use.

I'm not sure any citation exists since we don't know what murders are drug related (or even that some of them have happened).

However I would draw a major moral distinction between these two cases: one is misadventure, like freezing to death trying to climb Mt Everest, while the other is murder by a third party, like the manager of your local cold weather gear store gunning you down in your porch over an unsettled bill.

[K. A. Pital]

Actually, Siege, there is a way to combat cartels. Decriminalizing the drugs is certainly an option for nations like Belgium or the Netherlands, where people are enjoying a safety net that would simply not allow parts of the country to rot in ghetto-like extreme poverty.

But America is different; despite having a lot of wealth to throw around, at times (and in certain places) it is as darwinian, as we'd expect from many less developed nations. Therefore legalization in America might just cause an explosion of demand in America's ghetto towns and trailer parks.

Which would not solve the problem. It would just make more people die in horrible ways or spend their short lives as hopeless addicts.

[NettiWelho]

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201310 ... -yet.shtml
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/13/10/06/ ... itcoin-yet

DOJ Hasn't Actually Found Silk Road Founder's Bitcoin Yet

With the DOJ tracking down and arresting the alleged founder/owner of Silk Road, Ross Ulbricht, it was noted that it had also seized 26,000 or so Bitcoins. However, in the criminal complaint against Ulbricht, it suggested that his commissions were in the range of $80 million -- or about 600,000 Bitcoins. You might notice the disconnect between the 26,000 Bitcoins seized and the supposed 600,000 Ulbright made. It now comes out that those 26,000 Bitcoins aren't even Ulbricht's. Instead, they're actually from Silk Road's users. In other words, these were Bitcoins stored with user accounts on Silk Road. Ulbricht's actual wallet is separate from that, and was apparently encrypted, so it would appear that the FBI does not have them, nor does it have any way of getting at them just yet.

[PKRudeBoy]

Frankly I think hard drugs are simply too addictive and too dangerous to legalize without incurring a massive cost to society. I suppose that since the War on Drugs has arguably resulted in the rise of extremely rich, powerful and violent drug cartels you could make the argument that the cost of legalizing hard drugs might be lower than that of continuing to allow the cartels to reap the benefits of illicit drug trade... But then it's probably not a good idea to reduce this problem to a false dillemma like that, there's other ways of combating the cartels, without affordable healthcare the cost of legal hard drugs is likely to go up massively, etc.

What do you consider hard drugs? I'm assuming that meth, heroin and coke make that list, but does alcohol or tobacco? If hard drugs are being defined by being addictive and dangerous they should, but they are rarely included. What about MDMA, LSD, or shrooms, which are often lumped in with hard drugs even though they are not addicting and cause very little harm in comparison?

[Siege]

Actually, Siege, there is a way to combat cartels. Decriminalizing the drugs is certainly an option for nations like Belgium or the Netherlands, where people are enjoying a safety net that would simply not allow parts of the country to rot in ghetto-like extreme poverty.

But America is different; despite having a lot of wealth to throw around, at times (and in certain places) it is as darwinian, as we'd expect from many less developed nations. Therefore legalization in America might just cause an explosion of demand in America's ghetto towns and trailer parks.

I agree, although I mentioned legalization rather than decriminalization. Possession of hard drugs is certainly punished much less harshly here than in the USA, and addiction is considered more a health issue than a crime issue, which I suspect is a better approach. Like I said, it's not a dichotomy between banning the stuff or completely legalizing it: decriminalization would be a good start. And once you've done that you could perhaps start to look into possibly completely legalizing certain drugs. That would definitely take a lot of wealth and power away from people you really don't want to have those things to begin with.

What do you consider hard drugs? I'm assuming that meth, heroin and coke make that list, but does alcohol or tobacco? If hard drugs are being defined by being addictive and dangerous they should, but they are rarely included. What about MDMA, LSD, or shrooms, which are often lumped in with hard drugs even though they are not addicting and cause very little harm in comparison?

I'm not going to say what should or should not be available: I'm no drug expert so the result would be arbitrary and ill-informed, and not particularly comprehensive. I think it's safe to say however that there are certain substances that are simply too dangerous and/or addictive to be freely and widely available (that would be my definition of hard drugs); indeed some of those substances may very well already be, but then few here I think would claim the current range of what is and isn't legally available is particularly sensible, instead of largely a historic happenstance.

[Broomstick]

What do you consider hard drugs? I'm assuming that meth, heroin and coke make that list, but does alcohol or tobacco? If hard drugs are being defined by being addictive and dangerous they should, but they are rarely included. What about MDMA, LSD, or shrooms, which are often lumped in with hard drugs even though they are not addicting and cause very little harm in comparison?

The US banned alcohol and after a number of years decided the harm generated by the ban exceeded the benefit and repealed the amendment banning it. I don't have an issue with the same argument being made for other drugs on a case by case basis, but that doesn't mean I favor legalizing anything and everything however people want it.

Some tools should only be used by people properly trained and authorized to use them. We don't allow anyone to simply fly an airplane or perform surgery because the consequences of mis-use can result in great harm or death to others. Likewise, even those properly trained and authorized can be held accountable for harm caused during their use of said tools. Pharmaceuticals are no different. Some are innocuous enough to be released to pretty much anyone. Some are very hazardous and require safeguards.

Contrary to some statements made in this thread, there ARE legitimate medical uses for both heroin and cocaine but they are both tools that present hazards and thus should be regulated and not widely and easily available. (As there are also alternatives to both simply banning them has little effect on medical outcomes.) Regardless, there will always be people who mis-use them and that is why the "war on drugs" will never be won by current strategies. A willingness to consider alternatives to the present does not mean we should return to the days when such things were available over the counter at the local pharmacy/chemist to anyone with sufficient funds, including minors and deranged individuals. There was a lot of harm done back then, hence the reason nations started limiting access to such things back at the start of the 20th Century. Those laws weren't passed in a vacuum.

[NettiWelho]

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... =230442617
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/13/10/09/ ... re-to-come

an AP report indicates at least 8 more arrests have been made on people suspected to have sold drugs through the site. Four of the arrests happened in the U.K., two were in the U.S. and two were in Sweden. It looks like they're gearing up for more arrests, as well. Keith Bristow of Britain's National Crime Agency said, 'These latest arrests are just the start; there are many more to come.' Authorities are reportedly mining the site's customer review system, which contains months worth of transaction data, for further leads.