Slashdot Mirror
8 Users of Silk Road Arrested, 'Many More To Come'
An anonymous reader writes "Last week authorities shut down Silk Road, an online black market that made use of Tor to hide activity. They also arrested the site's primary operator, Ross Ulbricht, and seized his possessions. Now, 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."
Crime doesn't pay, but the hours are great!
... that people used their real names and addresses on Silk Rd as sellers, and expected to never get busted in the process.
... wait, what?
Instead of weed, package contained SWAT team.
Would not buy again.
(with apologies to xkcd)
that this isn't a failure of the technology. Ulbricht made the mistake of allowing the feds to connect the dots. Silk Road apparently kept some kind of logs. Here's hoping you didn't buy from them.
Tor was developed by DARPA and is funded by the NSF and the US State Dept.
I think your fears are a little unfounded.
My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
Let's focus on recreational drugs!
It's as if we don't want peoples attention on the real criminals.
Sociopath plutocrats and their dogs.
http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats
"Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
Anybody interesting and hilariously anti-drug in public life on the list yet, or do those get filtered out before they send in the jackboots?
WTF I thought part of the point of Bitcoin was it's bloody difficult to trace!!
Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.
Or, at least the wrong fears...
"Unheard of means only it's undreamed of yet,
Impossible means not yet done." ~~ Julia Ecklar
Nice troll. Buying on a black market is never good. However, the fact that our society/governmet forces one to exist, when its existance has demonstrably caused harm, created violence, gangs, addicts, and an underclass of simple users as felons, all to feed the public a boogeyman to help rake in funds for those in power and with entrenched interests is what is horrible. The fact that you probably buy it hook, line, and sinler scares me too.
Silence is a state of mime.
Over 10 years ago, the US gave everyone a glimpse of their tapping capabilities via way of Carnivore aka DCS1000. Then news came out about Magic Lantern which was used to collar mobster Nicki Scarfo. That then should have been a no-brainer: "the gov is/can watch you..." Few years later, idiots^W people took to TOR which was initially a Navy project. They created an "E-Bay like" site where people can "rate my drugs." What a bunch of illiterate morons who used the site. If I were a reporter, my story would start something like: "Silk Road users were so technologically advanced, yet dense on common sense..."
While I agree that going after pot and shroom users is stupid, heroine is illegal for a very real and compelling reason: it kills. Quite a few others as well. I think the users need rehab and not jail time, but the dealers who enable people to destroy themselves for profit need to be shut down.
I personally hijacked my own addiction center in the brain with Skinner boxes, so I have no room for drugs on top of my MMOs.
Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
3... 2... 1. GO! Write posts explaining how people buying things like shovels and knifes on the regular market is okay, and how talking would *never* be used for bad purposes.
And the NSA is working to compromise it, as recent leaks revealed.
The US government isn't a monolith. Different departments within it are often working at cross-purposes, or even in open opposition.
3... 2... 1. GO! Write posts explaining how people buying things like herion and cocaine on the black market is okay.
hmmm! ...hmm! ... People should be the owners of their own lives and taking responsibility away from people and treating them as stupid children turns them into stupid children!
Right? ... Right? ...What did I win?
Your solution to crime is to make nothing illegal. What is solved? You cannot seriously be arguing that hard drugs are a (tm)Good Thing and that everyone should have free or even subsicized access to them. I say this as a pretty regular marijuana smoker. There's a vast world of difference too between the bright internet, that tries to protect the privacy of its users, and the dark internet, which has become a wretched hive of scum and villainy. No, you can't blame the technology, but you can sure blame the people that (ab)use it.
Yes, prison spreads HIV, Hep B&C, Tuberculosis, etc. And it causes non-violent offenders to be subjected to sexual violence. Thanks for pointing that out.
Different departments
http://cryptome.org/2013/10/packet-stain/packet-staining.htm
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Why? They did nothing to you.
Be or ben't
Crime rule #1: If you're going to do crime, don't do crime with anyone you haven't known since high school. Doing crime with random strangers over the Internet is just fcking stupid.
How about you queue up in the shoot-a-troll line on the receiving edge?
right....because if it were all legal, people wouldn't be addicts still...
Operant conditioning chamber
Main article: Operant conditioning chamber
While a researcher at Harvard, B. F. Skinner invented the operant conditioning chamber, popularly referred to as the Skinner box, to measure responses of organisms (most often, rats and pigeons) and their orderly interactions with the environment. The box had a lever and a food tray, and a hungry rat could get food delivered to the tray pressing the lever. Skinner observed that when a rat was put in the box, it would wander around, sniffing and exploring, and would usually press the bar by accident, at which point a food pellet would drop into the tray. After that happened, the rate of bar pressing would increase dramatically and remain high until the rat was no longer hungry.
Skinner discovered that consequences for the organism played a large role in how the organism responded in certain situations. For instance, when the rat would pull the lever it would receive food. Subsequently, the rat made frequent pulls on the lever. Negative reinforcement was also exemplified by Skinner placing rats into an electrified chamber that delivered unpleasant shocks. Levers to cut the power were placed inside these boxes. By running a current through the “operant conditioning chamber,” Skinner noticed that the rats, after accidentally pressing the lever in a frantic bid to escape, quickly learned the effects of implementing the lever and consequently used this knowledge to stop the currents both during and prior to electrical shock. These two learned responses are known as Escape Learning and Avoidance Learning. The operant chamber for pigeons involves a plastic disc in which the pigeon pecks in order to open a drawer filled with grains. The Skinner box led to the principle of reinforcement, which is the probability of something occurring based on the consequences of a behavior.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B._F._Skinner
Not a post, but a set of questions:
Does a shovel, when used as intended by the seller cause anyone harm?
Does a knife, when used as intended by the seller cause anyone harm?
Does heroin, when used as intended by the seller cause anyone harm?
One of these ones is not like the others.
CAPTCHA: trapping
of privacy? I think this isi highly illegal activity, but then what isn't these days? If you are the G-men then you can break laws! Tor one has the expectation of privacy, so this goes against the law.
I do not think that your hypothesis that hard drugs are bad is not necessarily correct. I invite you to learn an alternate model of addiction which may change your world a bit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rat_Park
What do you think?
I've never bought or sold anything on Silk Road. However the actions of the government are threatening my rights to be free from government persecution. Drugs in and of themselves have the potential to harm the users and no one else short of other illegal actions (by government, which result in violence and crime, or violence against another through force/coercion to use). It's not the users of Silk Road who have committed a crime here. It's the government. The government is not protecting the citizens by criminalizing possession or sale. It's creating a violent state and perpetrating crime.
The politicians and those involved in law enforcement need to be held to account for crimes against the people. Unfortunately until more people stand up and say no more we are going to see people persecuted. Snowden, Ross Ulbricht of Silk Road, Julian Assange, Michael Hastings, David Miranda of Guardian's partners reporter fame, Eric Eoin Marques of Freedom Hosting, Ladar Levison of Lavabit, Manning, Bernie S, amongst others. Some are people heavily involved in free software projects who have been harassed by the FBI. Even people who have no connection with any kind of crime have been harassed by the FBI and there friends threatened with arrest. This has lead to friends of those harassed having to separate themselves and discontinue communications. This disruption of communications amongst people who might stand up is disturbing.
It is disturbing that people arrested have no right to communicate with each other. People who otherwise might potentially stand up in protest to have the law changed can't. The law is effectively prohibiting protest and freedom of speech. The law is preventing democracy.
While I'm not going to stand up and fight a losing battle I will encourage people to donate financially to projects which are fighting these abuses. Consider becoming a member of the EFF, ACLU, and other organizations. If you haven't done so contribute to the defense funds of those who are standing up. If you have the guts to stand up do so! Just be prepared to spend some time in jail.
By making drugs legal, it solves a couple of things. First, it would stop the synthetic drugs that have been popping up everywhere. These are much more dangerous than the drugs that they try to imitate. Synthetic marijuana has killed people, but real marijuana doesn't. That's a byproduct of the War on Drugs. Second, it could be controlled and taxed, which would bring down the prices and negate the risk for organized crime. For example, when I was in high school, it was easier for me to buy pot than it was to buy alcohol. It wasn't worth it for the local drug dealer to sell me beer, but it was for pot.
decades of drug war have yet to reduce the number of addicts or drug users, obviously criminalizing it isn't working,
this is prohibition all over again
Since the human body destroys itself in every case, a substance like heroin that makes life enjoyable is actually the best thing in the world. That you think dealers "need to be shut down" demonstrates that evil has seeped into your heart.
No. Heroine only kills because it is unregulated. Nearly every OD is because some one got an unexpectedly pure batch and used what they thought was their regular dose. Perhaps you were thinking of meth?
I am a little worried by your other comments. What's next? Fatty foods and large sodas? Dangerous sports? How many ways do people destroy themselves are you prepared to stop? I'm slippin' down a slope here!
To me, it all comes down to what used to be considered a basic American freedom, to do with my body as I see fit. If I want to rent out my butthole to buy chemicals that kill me, that's my right and none of your damned business.
Not Skinner boxes, he meant BF Skinner boxes cured him, AKA prison cells, emphasis on the BF.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
In all three cases the seller intends to make a profit. Any motive beyond that is pure speculation on your part.
Buying on a black market is never good. However,...
Excellent post. Thank you!
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
Let's be clear about this. Silk Road operators had a guy killed. They are no different in that regard than the thugs running any other drug gang. When you buy on the black market, you are paying with blood money that destroys other peoples' lives and livelihoods. You know this is the consequence of your action. You can go ahead and blame the government if you want, but YOU are providing the money that gets people killed.
Yes, maybe the product should be legal. If so and you care, talk to your representatives. Start a political campaign. But DO NOT pay the murderous racket that brings you illegal drugs.
I would like to be able to purchase my drugs anonymously, but since I'm paying Silk Road a percentage, I'd like some kind of guarantee.
Some kind of accountability, in other words.
How to balance the two? They don't balance. Even if the only accountability is a seller's good name, there must be some kind of linked identification which, over time, provides enough information to find the individual and arrest them.
Futurist Traditionalism
Portugal has had an interesting experience with Decriminalization: http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/evaluating-drug-decriminalization-in-portugal-12-years-later-a-891060.html
Making drug users into felons is not a net positive for society, but man the prison industry sure benefits!
This guy can help you with that.
The bigger problem though, is if synthetic drugs are cheaper and easier to make - they'll still appear and be sold, perhaps even disguised as the "real thing". Then there's all sorts of issues with that happening, from improper doses as well as potential issues with style of dosing (inhaling vs injecting etc.)
I agree that legalization might help in some conditions, but ultimate regulation would be key in that you'd know what you're getting. The unknown of some random guy selling you something isn't an issue if you have the means. Of course, the random guy selling might be cheaper - and that would still not stop it completely.
Karnal
Does a shovel, when used as intended by the seller cause anyone harm?
To an environmentalist, yes.
Does a knife, when used as intended by the seller cause anyone harm?
To a pumpkin, yes.
Does heroin, when used as intended by the seller cause anyone harm?
Sure, but the environmentalist protecting his pumpkins doesn't mind.
One of these ones is not like the others.
Let's see ... shovels and knives are inserted into something ... but knives and heroin are inserted into the body ... and the sellers, heroin user and environmentalist are all people ... so my answer is "pumpkin!"
how this will affect bitcoins in the long run. There was a bit of a fall...but will BTC now be deemed more legit or will all this work as an incentive to make it outright illegal?
Hope it works out for all those people with their Terahash ASIC machine buying plans.
A 'singular oddity' is an event that cannot be explained and only happens when you are alone.
Does it surprise anyone that the NSA is working to compromise Tor? at the very lease i would expect them to make a hobby of trying to compromise any network designed to hide or encrypt communications. if not for business reasons (keeping ahead of their rivals) at the very least i would expect them to do it for fun and to hone their skills. they are crypto guys it is what they do.
Buying on a black market is never good.
When you live under an authoritarian regime, black markets make you more free. That's good.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-talk/2013-September/029956.html
Let's be clear about this. Silk Road operators had a guy killed.
So has Obama.
They are no different in that regard than the thugs running any other drug gang.
Or the anti-drug gang we call the DEA.
When you buy on the black market, you are paying with blood money that destroys other peoples' lives and livelihoods. You know this is the consequence of your action.
Same as when you pay your taxes, or buy coca-cola, bananas, iphones, diamonds, or gasoline.
You can go ahead and blame the government if you want, but YOU are providing the money that gets people killed.
The government is the one that created the black market. They know this is the consequence of their action. They bear complete responsibility for failing to regulate the drug market safely.
Yes, maybe the product should be legal. If so and you care, talk to your representatives. Start a political campaign. But DO NOT pay the murderous racket that brings you illegal drugs.
Right, and if we all stopped using drugs, and asked nicely for drug prohibition to be repealed, what do you think would happen? Why would they listen to us when from their perspective prohibition would have been a complete success? Resistance is the only way we ever win freedom.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Cigarettes are legal, but there is still considerable crime around them, including large scale smuggling and tax evasion. There will continue to be a market for illegal drugs in one form or another even if certain street drugs are legalized. (I very much every one would be.) Some people won't want to pay taxes, some people will want something different. People go looking for new, different, bigger, better, longer lasting highs all the time. And as the story about the skin eating drug Krokodil showed, people don't necessarily care about the consequences if they end up taking certain drugs. People say that alcohol prohibition in the US didn't work, and there were certainly problems attached to it. But it is a fact that Prohibition caused alcohol consumption to fall sharply in the US, and per capita consumption was far lower even after it ended than before it began. It took something like 50 years for alcohol consumption to return to where it was.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
No, we're arguing that drugs (hard drugs is a meaningless propaganda term) exist, and there are ways to regulate them that work better than prohibition.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
And the statists who know better than the rest of us are running the show.
Heroin kills more people than it would otherwise because it is illegal. When properly maintained on metered doses of pharmaceutical grade opiates, addicts don't overdose because they know what they are getting and can dose appropriately. You get overdose deaths when addicts go without supply for a while, and don't know their tolerance, or when a new batch of highly potent drugs hits the streets. That only happens because of prohibition.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
http://it.slashdot.org/story/13/09/11/1224252/are-the-nist-standard-elliptic-curves-back-doored
Not every Bad Thing should be outlawed.
There's no contradiction in the belief that heroin addiction is bad and that the appropriate method to mitigate that harm isn't the police.
His point isn't that we have to choose between prosecuting drug users and bankers. His point is that drug enforcement is a distraction for the people, so that they don't demand we prosecute bankers. It's misdirection.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
No
No
No
Any other dumb questions?
He tried to kill me with a forklift!
Exxxcellent!
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
He's a sad little man, and instead of looking inwards (and being disgusted) he finds easy targets and does a bit of transference.. that or he's a troll.
He tried to kill me with a forklift!
8 dickheads more like. Who the fuck gives out real personally identifiable information when buying drugs from the internet?
To paraphrase Bill Hicks: "I just felt the world get a little lighter. We lost 8 morons!" In fact LE are probably doing everybody a favor removing these pricks from the food chain.
FFS
Hi Shavano,
In this post you wrote:
> Let's be clear about this. Silk Road operators had a guy killed.
And in another post you wrote:
> These guys are also murderers.
While I think your main point is correct, that Ross Ulbricht is (allegedly) a thug, I also think we should be clear that (probably) nobody actually died. Ulbricht is accused of paying bitcoins to have two people killed, but neither "hit" was carried out. See
http://www1.icsi.berkeley.edu/~nweaver/UlbrichtCriminalComplaint.pdf
bottom of page 23, for a summary of one "hit", and
https://ia601904.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.uscourts.mdd.238311/gov.uscourts.mdd.238311.4.0.pdf
starting on page 6, for a step-by-step account of the other.
I call bullshit. Does anyone know anyone this really happened to? Pics or it never happened.
Korma: Good
You see, you are supposed to use the new Obamacare Healthcare.gov site to get your officialized care plan and see one of our approved drug advisors (psychiatrists), who will then vouch for you to purchase some meth from government licensed drug dealers. Providing profits to those major drug cartels willing to donate to the political campaigns of our politicians (Pfizer, Bayer, etc.)
Bullshit. A dealer of heroine sells it with the intent that someone consume it instead of it lying on the coffee table as an item of interest, At the very, very best, you're being disingenuous.
I have no pity for overdosers. Accurate info on drugs is ubiquitous. But FFS, dealers are not respectable merchants by any definition and know full well what they're doing and enabling and give not one shit.
"Land of the free. Home of the brave."
"smuggling and tax evasion" have nothing to do with the nature of cigarettes themselves and everything to do with governments taxing the daylights out of them (a cigarette's retail price is about 25-30% of most nation's after tax prices).
No one would take krokodil if they could get other opiates cheaply. Opiates are cheap excluding the legal risks (which dramatically raise prices).
Lets see... create a website pretty much solely dedicated to the black market and money laundering (not even Russia will be too thrilled with you), attach a big "find and arrest me as soon as possible!" sign to yourself, connect it only to an anonymized network, but then leave the data on your server unencrypted?
Somebody had an over-inflated opinion of the ability of technology to protect him from law enforcement.
Yes.
Bonus: it's quite a common tactic to make a thing that many (poor) people do illegal so you can arrest most (poor) people at any time for breaking the (ridiculous) law you just wrote. Politically active, vocal, at a rally and smoking a joint? That's a (judicial) beating ; ).
"Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
Bonus: it's quite a common tactic to make a thing that many (poor) people do illegal so you can arrest most (poor) people at any time
The thing about that is, it's not poor people who do most of the drugs. Rich people actually use more drugs than poor people. They have the money and free time after all. This makes the overabundance of poor black drug users in jail all the more obviously unjust. We know for certain that they're not enforcing this law fairly.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Buying on a black market is never good.
'Black market' is just a propaganda term for 'free market' when a government has banned some portion of that free market.
It's the items that are sold that can be of dubious moral stature, not the mechanism, unless you assume a priori that all government bans are moral.
Fortunately a Constitutional Amendment was passed giving the US Federal Government the power to prohibit recreational drugs. Oh, no, wait. Well then, fortunately the US Federal Government has a general police power. No, that's that's not right either. Fortunately there are now more black men in prison for drug 'crimes' than were ever slaves ... ah, hell - it's moral because they have guns and are willing to use them!
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
"don't do anything that someone with more power than you disapproves of"
powerful people didn't like silk road because they didn't have power over it, individuals could freely trade with each other without asking permission or giving the government a cut
the authoritarians who make up the government hate the idea that anything is outside of their control, so they use their power to hurt those who have the audacity to act without getting permission first
Nice bullshit comment. You can get stone-age on pure heroine.
SR users are not being busted now, so much because they broke the law when they did.
They are being arrested in order to scare the people who might otherwise set up the next SR equivalent site.
The pigs can not usually arrest more than a maximum of 5% of any given group; whether it be filesharing, drugs, or whatever else. The reason why is simple logistics; there are literally millions of people motivated to break the law, for every one person there is motivated to enforce it.
So they're not trying to arrest everyone who does it. What they're trying to do, is arrest a sufficiently large number, that the majority who they can not arrest, are sufficiently scared, that they cease engaging in the behaviour in question. Publically at least, that worked wonders with file sharing; eMule died practically overnight, once Razorback, one of the main servers in the eDonkey network was raided. It was only a single server, yet it was a sufficiently well-known one, that it sent everyone into a panic, so they all started uninstalling eMule and no longer using it. That is exactly what the pigs want.
The moral of the story is not to be afraid. Do not selfishly hold the attitude that you should stop, because even though they can barely enforce the law itself, you might be one of the 1-5% who gets hit by the poison ball. The fact of the matter is, that the more people break the law, the safer everyone breaking it is; not less. If less people are infringing, that means that the percentage of the total group that the pigs can arrest, goes up. That in turn means that if you are one of the people who is still infringing, when most other people have stopped, you are now more likely to get busted than you were before.
So people need to make more Silk Road clones. There also need to be more clones of the Pirate Bay. We need so many people copying files, and buying and selling drugs, that the authorities end up being completely overwhelmed.
Heroin is actually good at what it was designed for by Bayer labs back in the early 1900's. Pharmaceutical grade heroin of known potency and knowledgeably prescribed dosage is very safe, you can take it your whole life. Addicts die because they are forced to buy on the black market without medical supervision.
To ensure perfect aim, shoot first and call whatever you hit the target
Good. I hope all the fucking dealers and junkies go to prison and get ass-raped.
I agree. Starting with the over-the-counter pill heads and prescription users. Oh wait, that's almost the entire population. Welp, guess we'd better increase the DEA budget again... yay job creation!
So you can jerk off thinking about it?
What is being advocated by many for marijuana? Make it legal and tax it - like cigarettes. There is the start of your black market, and that is before you consider the strength, cost, and "enhancements" like lacing marijuana with PCP.
The bad effects of meth are widely known, but people still take it instead of just using marijuana. There will always be some new designer drug or derivative that will be illegal, and that some people will want even if it destroys them.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
The bigger problem though, is if synthetic drugs are cheaper and easier to make - they'll still appear and be sold, perhaps even disguised as the "real thing".
Usually, the synthetic drugs are much more difficult and expensive to make as they're far more chemically complex than the simpler 'traditional' recreational substances.
There are a few cases of some reasonably difficult to make drugs - such as LSD - however make one large batch and you've just created a year's supply for an entire average sized nation, so it does tend to balance out.
My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
When you make a tinfoil hat, the shiny side goes on the outside.
The bad effects of meth are widely known, but people still take it instead of just using marijuana.
That has nothing to do with the relative dangers of the substances and everything to do with that the 'desired effect' of the drugs are totally different. It's like saying, "the bad effects of McDonalds are widely known, but people still eat there instead of just having a raw carrot.".
I'm a relatively frequent user of psychedelics (as my post history and sig clearly show), however have absolutely no interest in marijuana, opiates, or alcohol despite having tried all of them. On rare occasions (approx. once a year) I enjoy entactogens (almost exclusively MDMA) and on very rare occasions (approx once every two to three years) will also use amphetamines, however that's more for their direct use (in helping to perform a long repetitive task without losing focus or getting tired) than for any kind of enjoyment.
My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
Heroin, not heroine ...
Anyway, no, heroin does not "kill more and more until they reach a critical level and die". The AC you replied to has it more correct. MOST (not all) heroin ODs are from new batches or some other mistake. Or mixing heroin with alcohol and / or other drugs.
Which brings me to my real point. If you think that heroin is dangerous (and it is), what's your thinking on alcohol? Or tobacco? The societal costs of either drug dwarf the societal costs of ALL illegal drugs, sans law enforcement costs put together. If you plan to be logically consistent (never a strong point with humans), then we should outlaw alcohol (again) and tobacco (goodluckwiththat).
Yes, there are medical costs associated with drug use, those problems should be left to the medical community, not the legal one. We're not perfect, but our track record is considerably better. You are never going to have a society free of drug use and other behaviors that are demonstrably bad for the individual. Where the US screws up big time is believing that the legal process is the way to redress those issues. We've demonstrably shown that the "War on Drugs" doesn't work.
Time to do the American thing and re invent ourselves and switch gears. The rather interesting thing is that Colorado and Washington have waded into that vast abyss and are trying to figure out how to make an illegal drug legal. This will inevitably be (somewhat) successful and can point to the way to legalize other drugs, although not likely any time soon. Our underlying Calvinist / Puritan mythology will hang on for a while longer, I'm afraid.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
right....because if it were all legal, people wouldn't be addicts still...
So, based on this line of thought, we should immediately outlaw alcohol, tobacco and coffee; all three substances only have very limited positive use and a high potential for harmful addiction.
The risk of addiction - hell, even the DANGER of the substance - has very little if anything to do with its legal status in most countries' legal systems.
Legalising or decriminalising various drugs may or may not reduce the number of addicts; but it WILL decrease the associated dangers that only exist because of the current legal status.
My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
Does a shovel, when used as intended by the seller cause anyone harm?
Depends on the seller's intention... generally not, but maybe.
Does a knife, when used as intended by the seller cause anyone harm?
Depends on the seller's intention... generally not, but maybe.
Does heroin, when used as intended by the seller cause anyone harm?
Depends on the seller's intention... generally not, but maybe.
Drug dealers usually don't want to harm or kill their customers. It tends to reduce repeat business...
My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
Don't throw Krokodil in there like it is anything but a lurid side show. Yes, people will do stupid / illegal things. Tax evasion being one of them. But all of those untaxed cigarettes - they're real cigarettes. All of those bath salts - they're kitchen chemistry (like Krokodil which is basically and IV form of gasoline).
Don't make the mistake of thinking ANYTHING you do needs to be remotely perfect. Speeding laws aren't perfect. Taxes certainly aren't. But we can do significantly better for a wide swath of society by essentially legalizing anything. We're going to have problems, but hell, we have them now. I'd rather treat someone for addiction than treat someone for addiction who has a felony conviction for drug use. That poor sod already has three strikes against them.
Mental health issues and legal issues are tough. Quite a fraction of the long term incarcerated have serious psychiatric problems and for those people, locking them away from the rest of society is arguably the best we can do. For drug use, not so much.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
And as the story about the skin eating drug Krokodil showed, people don't necessarily care about the consequences if they end up taking certain drugs.
As if. The only reason they use Krokodil is because their drug of choice is expensive and hard to obtain, and the only reason their drug of choice is expensive and hard to obtain is because it is illegal.
I think that your post nicely dovetails with my overall point - there will almost certainly still be black markets even after legalization of various drugs. There will still be people pursuing illegal highs.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Cigarettes are legal, but there is still considerable crime around them, including large scale smuggling and tax evasion.
Hey, lots of cars get stolen too. How about we prohibit cars? There's considerable crime around them.
Will crime disappear when we legalize drugs? No, but we have plenty of reason to believe that it will dramatically decrease.
People go looking for new, different, bigger, better, longer lasting highs all the time. And as the story about the skin eating drug Krokodil showed, people don't necessarily care about the consequences if they end up taking certain drugs.
Which is exactly why opiates should be legal. If they can't get their fix safely, they will get their fix dangerously. Better to provide them with clean pharmaceutical grade drugs and enjoy a healthier society.
But it is a fact that Prohibition caused alcohol consumption to fall sharply in the US, and per capita consumption was far lower even after it ended than before it began.
While simultaneously increasing the harm caused by alcohol. Nobody went blind from bathtub gin before prohibition. There were no gang shootouts in the street before prohibition. The problems caused by prohibition were so bad that even success in limiting drinking was not worth suffering that terrible law. If that's the case, imagine how much better the world will be when we end the War on Drug Users.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
I don't understand the logic of people that are surprised by this. The issue is not whether or not it should be legal. If you want to get drug dealing legalized there are legislative processes to do that. People have done exactly this in any number of places with pot in particular. That being said, the fact of the matter is that dealing drugs is illegal and people are acting shocked, surprised and offended that silk road drug dealers are being prosecuted.
If a given thing is illegal offline, why on earth would people think it would somehow become legal because they are doing it online? Are people really so stupid as to think that just because they tried to conceal their crimes that it somehow became legal? Why on earth should anyone be surprised that arrests are being made in countries all over the planet?
What is being advocated by many for marijuana? Make it legal and tax it - like cigarettes.
No one is advocating that because they think it's the right thing to do. They advocate that because tax money is a good carrot to dangle in front of legislators who care more about money than freedom.
The actual right thing to do is to treat Cannabis like other mild psychoactives from plant sources. Put it on the grocery store shelf next to the coffee and the chocolate.
The bad effects of meth are widely known, but people still take it instead of just using marijuana
Because meth is nothing like Cannabis. Try legalizing cocaine, and I bet you'd see a large decrease in meth use.
There will always be some new designer drug or derivative that will be illegal, and that some people will want even if it destroys them.
At least that will be their choice. Instead of the multitudes of people who have had their lives ruined by drug cartels that wouldn't exist without prohibition. Or those who have had their lives ruined by having a parent arrested for simply trying to make a buck in one of the few ways they have available. Or those who have had their lives ruined due to overzealous enforcement. Or those who have had their lives ruined simply because they enjoy a joint after a hard days work.
Prohibition ruins more lives than drugs.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Crime rule #1: If you're going to do crime, don't do crime with anyone you haven't known since high school. Doing crime with random strangers over the Internet is just fucking stupid - unless, or course, you are just stealing music, or movies.
This is Slasdhot, after all.
And what exactly is the point of your point? That we should never reform anything because no reform is perfect?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
That's why we have regulatory agencies.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
I think that your post nicely dovetails with my overall point - there will almost certainly still be black markets even after legalization of various drugs. There will still be people pursuing illegal highs.
I believe there would be, yes... however if you legalise the 'safer' variants of most classes of drugs, the quantity of people persuing illegal highs will be significantly lower. As another poster mentioned, no one* would take "Krokodil" who could get their hands on cheap and easy Heroin.
Just legalise one or two opiates; one or two amphetamines; an entactogen or two; most of the tryptamine psychedelics; a few of the phenethylamine psychedelics... etc.
* "No one" meaning 'almost no one', since there'll always be morons.
My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
By making drugs legal, it solves a couple of things.
It is not good enough to make drugs legal. You'd have to make them free.
I don't care if people take drugs. I only care that it affects people that do not take drugs.
1. drug users kill - driving under influence and similar
2. drug users run out of money and rob and murder others to get money to get more drugs.
Those are the problems. Making drugs legal does not solve these problems. The only way to solve both is to keep drugs illegal, but addicts can get free drugs at "drug centers" and they are not allowed to leave until
1. they are sober, OR
2. they give up their car (eg. sell it) and permission to drive (license).
The Silk Road actually used a good method of regulation - consumer feedback. If someone sold bad drugs, they'd get a bad review. If this were scaled up to a legal industry, we'd have independent testing labs who would certify the product, and then the distributor would advertise it on the label.
>The bigger problem though, is if synthetic drugs are cheaper and easier to make - they'll still appear and be sold, perhaps even disguised as the "real thing".
Yes, and just like with fake milk in China, when you do that you will end up in deep trouble.
I would like to be able to purchase my drugs anonymously, but since I'm paying Silk Road a percentage, I'd like some kind of guarantee.
Some kind of accountability, in other words.
How to balance the two? They don't balance. Even if the only accountability is a seller's good name, there must be some kind of linked identification which, over time, provides enough information to find the individual and arrest them.
Guarantee of what... that they'll ship the drugs, or that they'll protect your identity? For the former there's escrow, for the latter there is no way to check.
Making drug users into felons is not a net positive for society, but...industry sure benefits!
And now you understand the nature of the game.
Nearly every OD is because some one got an unexpectedly pure batch and used what they thought was their regular dose.
Their "regular dose" of heroin? How many heroin addicts have you lived with? The ones I've lived with have described a tolerance to heroin like you would build up with anything else (nicotine, alcohol, etc). They slowly raise the dose to keep achieving the same or a better high, and one day the dose is too much for them. Could be the same stuff they've always been getting, they just wanted to reach the next level. If you're talking about someone with a "regular dose" then you're talking about an addict, and that is the behavior of an addict. There aren't a lot of casual heroin users out there.
You're acting like heroin is a relatively benign substance, and it's only dangerous if the government is not regulating it. It's dangerous regardless, heroin users will continue to die regardless of the regulation involved with heroin. They will continue to die because they are addicted to a substance that is toxic, and they keep wanting to do a little bit more as they build up a tolerance.
I'm not arguing in favor of more government restrictions, but there's no reason to pretend that heroin is anything other than what it actually is.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
You are talking about people governing themselves!
Full stop. The stupids want benefits as well. Such as the benefit of a government that protects them from the evil people (hello Police, FBI, ATF) and the unscrupulous people (hello FDA) and we also want good roads (hello Highway Trust Fund) and they want health care (hello Obamacare) and they want a minimum standard of living (hello Welfare) and a retirement (hello Social Security) and to send money they don't have (hello Credit Cards and the debate about raising the Debt Ceiling)
Did you also want to win something? Lets try to win a war on drugs. Ok that got old and everyone stopped caring. I mean with people creating slogans like "Just say no!" Next!... War on Terror!
Most people are stupid children. They grow from stupid children and become stupid children. Irresponsible big kids living life in the moment. We as a society tolerate enough carnage from drunk and disorderly people. I'd rather we keep drugs in the shady zone than every other fool thinking it is okay to get high every weekend and drive home.
While I agree that going after pot and shroom users is stupid, heroine is illegal for a very real and compelling reason: it kills.
That's not a compelling reason; that's anti-freedom. If people want to kill themselves with heroine, assuming that's even true, then fine. Instead, you foolishly support keeping it illegal, proving that you do not desire a free country.
Da derp dee derp da teedly derpee derpee dum. Rated PG-13.
Why do you hate freedom? No, seriously; you may as well be arguing that the TSA is a good thing. It isn't surprising to see government bootlickers such as yourself advocating that we continue telling people what they can and can't put into their own bodies. You are a naive fool, and you have exactly the government you deserve: One that routinely violates people's rights in many ways. Unfortunately, you people aren't the only ones having your rights violated.
Da derp dee derp da teedly derpee derpee dum. Rated PG-13.
I think its definitely worth pursuing further experiments. Maybe this will blow the lid off our society as we know it or maybe its flawed like the special interests say. I'll add that some people in hospitals (the "cage") stay addicted to pain killers long after their treatment ends and they return to their normal life (the "park"). I'm guessing like most everything else in the universe, the answer isn't as simple as legalizing everything and building a park.
No tinfoil there; the government's sole intention here is to violate people's individual rights, just as it does with the TSA, the NSA, and all of that other garbage.
Da derp dee derp da teedly derpee derpee dum. Rated PG-13.
Actually, he claimed that the stupid drug enforcement is just meant as a distraction in hopes that people don't notice that 'authorities' have no intent to prosecute the biggest criminals in the country's history.
Even if not, it's still not a false dilemma since both choices require significant resources from a limited pool. If we dropped the DEA crap, we really would have more resources to focus on the more damaging crimes being committed with impunity.
There are several problems there. I certainly wouldn't recommend heroine for recreational purposes as the addiction is a problem in all cases, but the rest makes no sense. What of people who get addicted to opoids prescribed for actual medical need and then get cut off by a doctor who fears a malpractice suit or DEA trouble? They have to get the stuff from somewhere. Would you rather they come by it honestly or break in to a pharmacy?
Yes there is treatment for addiction, and yes they should get it. However, it's a bit hard to do if they can't afford it and since they have to effectively confess to a crime first. Even then, it is far from 100% effective.
Legitimize prescription for addiction, make it possible to get the counseling and the prescription free of charge when needed, and put it strictly off limits for DEA investigation and then I could entertain busting black market dealers.
Who is suggesting subsidized access to drugs? That's a pretty blatant strawman, as is the illusion that making possession of drugs criminal just makes drugs go away.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
There can be no groups that are denied individual rights, if you allow that to happen then eventually you yourself will be in one of those groups.
Pedophiles too?
More importantly, which "individual rights" are you claiming are being violated? Please list them and show where you derive such rights?
So, the experiment basically proved what any reasonable person has known empirically all along: most people do drugs recreationally because they're in shitty situations (poverty, disparity and so on) and drugs make shitty situations feel less shitty, even if only transiently.
Predictably, and despite additional studies confirming the results, policy-makers ignored and flat-out dismissed them by hurling irrelevant character insults to throw people of the scent of reason.
If they *actually* wanted to end the war on drugs, they would be trying to empower the people and end poverty. The truth is that they are perpetuating the drug war and they *like* it that way. It's just waaay more fun to dress up in riot gear, pack a big fucking gun and play soldier cop instead of working together peacefully and solving the real problems of society.
Does Chantix when used as intended by the seller cause anyone harm?
I agree that legalization might help in some conditions, but ultimate regulation would be key in that you'd know what you're getting. The unknown of some random guy selling you something isn't an issue if you have the means. Of course, the random guy selling might be cheaper - and that would still not stop it completely.
I think that would be a very minor problem unless the tax and regulation run the price waay up. That is, I can't think of a scenario where I would buy alcohol from some random guy since a known safe, affordable and legal source exists.
Video at 11 ...
I've know a couple heroin addicts. They have a dose that is "regular" in that it's what they usually do at the time. Empty 1 ballon in the spoon, cook it up and go.
Heroin IS a relatively benign substance. I'm a bit sick of the bad rap it has. Don't inject it, and it makes for a fun weekend with no noticeable withdraw after only a couple of nights.
Like most opioids, unadulterated heroin does not cause many long-term complications other than dependence and constipation.
from wikipedia.
That didn't come out right. I meant that you can use it intranasally for a couple of nights and then stop easily and without withdraw. I wouldn't recommend that you do this more than couple times a year, but YMMV.
I don't disagree with your point, but I have an honest question. I do believe that currently alcohol and tobacco currently cause more problems than drugs and both are unhealthy. My question is, how much of that is due to the fact that they are both legal and easily accessible? I know prohibition created underground markets and crime rose due to that. The flip side of the coin is whether general alcoholism was as common then as it is now? Does the scale get tipped in another direction rather than actually improve the situation? Many like the famous crime families in Chicago and New York rose to power from prohibition but was there also a dip in public intoxication, driving under the influence etc?
If we legalize certain drugs is there then a repeat where instead of people coming from a smoke filled bar drunk, they're on one of the legalized drugs and we've simply shifted the problem from illegal drug sales and gang crime to an increase in average people getting involved in risky situations? I have read about prohibition but never saw much mentioned on the other effects.
The ones I've lived with have described a tolerance to heroin like you would build up with anything else (nicotine, alcohol, etc). They slowly raise the dose to keep achieving the same or a better high, and one day the dose is too much for them.
Tolerance occurs to the life threatening effects of opiates just as it does to the euphoric effects. It's not impossible that an addict simply overdoses on his regular supply at his regular schedule, but unlikely. Notice how few overdoses are experienced by pain patients on opiates.
Could be the same stuff they've always been getting
Since we're talking about a black market, you can't know that. Even buying from the same guy, he may be cutting his stuff a little more each day because his supply is limited. Then he gets some new stuff, and doesn't cut it as much. You'd never know.
You're acting like heroin is a relatively benign substance, and it's only dangerous if the government is not regulating it.
No, we're acting like heroin is a dangerous substance, made more dangerous by the lack of government regulation.
It's dangerous regardless, heroin users will continue to die regardless of the regulation involved with heroin.
True. But fewer of them will die. That's a good thing.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
what used to be considered a basic American freedom, to do with my body as I see fit
The problem is when those people affect those around them, what about them? Our society has decided they had enough of drug dens. So they put some sort of punishment on it.
I have personally known 3 people who have died from heroin. Usually it is from mixing it with other drugs. These people would steal your shirt if you were not looking to pay 15 bucks for something so they can fend off the withdrawls for a few more hours.
What's next? Fatty foods and large sodas?
Yes they are next. Right there with smoking. As each of those has a society long term cost.
I disagree with it. But it is what is going to happen. I will fight it. However, I can at least see what the argument is about.
Remember all those bitcoin dudes who tried to tout it as somehow being an "anonymous" currency? Have fun in pound-me-in-the-ass prison, guys.
Some sort of anonymous Escrow system perhaps?
The NSA is our Signals Intelligence agency.
I'm mad that they're cracking Tor because privacy and all that. But seriously, if we're paying billions for signals intelligence and they aren't trying to break into a global dispersed anonymous communications network, then what would we be paying them for?
I'm a law abiding citizen.
The incredible irony of a poster with the username AlphaWolf acting totally unaware that human beings are social animals, and though some human societies may be more free than others, none will just allow people to do whatever they want to themselves.
Funded by DARPA, developed by NRL.
Then go get molested by the TSA, government bootlicker; you've brought this sort of thing upon yourself with these silly little justifications.
Da derp dee derp da teedly derpee derpee dum. Rated PG-13.
No one is unaware that humans are social animals, but the fact that they are does not justify infringing upon people's individual liberties; we must overcome our weaknesses and recognize that freedom should prevail.
Da derp dee derp da teedly derpee derpee dum. Rated PG-13.
Conspiracy to commit murder does not require the murder be effected. Legally and morally, it is irrelevant.
Unless the drugs in question are still in the possession of the buyer/seller, they have no actual proof that the alleged exchange occurred. They have records in a database that indicate some kind of transaction happened, but if the drugs are no longer around, they have no evidence. In the US, any competent lawyer in any jurisdiction should be able to see the hole in the prosecution's case... where are the drugs that were allegedly sold/purchased?
Am I completely missing the boat on this?
A dealer of heroin could easily be selling it to someone else to sell. That's not that difficult to buy.
The point is all 3 sell the item in question because they intend to make a profit. lxs's argument is logically sound, I'd say.
You are talking complete nonsense. Do some research, heroin is not harmful to the user even if used continuously for decades, there is no inevitable physical decline like you see in users of, say, alcohol, or tobacco. As for tolerance, it's real but not inevitable, you'd be surprised how much of the desire to increase one's dose is driven by the distorted thinking that comes from the unending and exhausting struggle to maintain a habit in the underworld environment of drug prohibition. In point of fact, studies show that given an ample legal and hassle-free supply, both humans and animals usually settle on an eventual steady daily dose and no more. The supposedly inevitable and universal need to increase the dose just isn't seen in laboratory and clinical settings, which suggests that like many other of the "problems" associated with heroin, it's an artifact of prohibition. Certainly most overdoses are exactly that, preventable deaths that simply wouldn't happen if the user had access to a pure product with a labeled dosage. Street bags can and often do contain harmful cutting agents, and the amount of actual heroin in such bags is often a dangerous guessing game. Then there's the fact that alcohol figures prominently in something like 90% of heroin deaths. In fact alcohol is manifestly a more dangerous drug by any measure of harm you want to use, and yet it's perfectly legal. What is accomplished by keeping heroin illegal? The decades of drug war madness has served only to increase both supply and demand, while purity is up, and prices have actually fallen. We've accomplished nothing but to cause more death and more ruined lives, with uncounted families destroyed and significant segments of the population chewed up by a merciless legal system, all while failing to have any positive effect at all on actual usage. So put the blame for most overdoses and virtually all drug-related crime squarely where it belongs, on the fact of prohibition. The drug itself is relatively harmless in comparison.
Drugs have not always been the problem that they are today. When someone becomes so addicted that they can't function then they become a burden on society, and that makes it everyone's problem. Some of these responses I see are so wrapped up in self-congratulatory "Look at me! I'm *compassionate*" declarations that they're almost parody.
Why not apply that reasoning to murder and rape laws? After all, they haven't eradicated their targets either. The lack of sheer common sense in this argument just floors me.
And there already *are* needle exchange programs. I'd call that an enablement of addictive behavior if not a subsidy.
Do you know who is most likely to die from heroin overdose (BTW, a "heroine" is a female hero)? Somebody who has gone through rehab and stayed clean for a while. If they fall off the wagon they no longer have the tolerance they did when they were shooting daily, and what would have given them the slightest buzz before rehab is enough to kill them.
And how good are the laws at keeping these people from overdosing? It looks to me like they don't work at all.
The junkie buying from a street dealer gets stuff that varies wildly in strength and purity. Legalize and regulate it and you'll have far fewer deaths.
Free Martian Whores!
Your solution to crime is to make nothing illegal.
Excuse me, but your strawman is awfully close to the flames, you wouldn't want him to burn down. Subsidized access? Dude, you're on slashdot, there are fewer people her that will fall for that stupidity than, say, reddit.
Look at the single most dangerous drug in the world -- alcohol. More people die from alcohol overdoses (they call it "alcohol poisoning", I don't know why it gets a different nomenclature than other drugs) than all other drugs combined. In the US they outlawed it in 1919 thinking all the boozers would dry up. What you got instead was speakeasies, smuggling, bathtub gin, and Al Capone. Drugs don't cause violent crime, drug laws cause violent crime. Look at Chicago in 1925 and Chicago today -- different drugs, same results.
Victimless crimes cause crimes with victims. Crack cocaine is ridiculously expensive because of its illegality. If it were legal it would be a dollar an ounce rather than twenty for half a gram, and my house probably wouldn't have been burglarized twice in the last 4 years.
Ever heard of an alcoholic who stole to support his habit? Me, either.
Legalizing and regulating victimless activity will cut crime rates drastically. You'll always have thieves and violent people, but take illegal drugs out of the equation by making all of them legal (I'd keep antibiotics illegal, your taking unnecessary antibiotics does harm me) and your property crimes and violent crimes will plummet greatly.
Free Martian Whores!
Do you think you could vary your contribution to this thread a little more than repeated invocations of the TSA and accusations that others are "bootlickers"? It's getting tiresome.
Rapists don't cause rape, rape laws cause rape.
FTFY. Do you not see where your reasoning is flawed? Your argument essentially boils down to, "people will do whatever they want to do and laws cannot stop that." and also implies that since (a) alcohol is a Bad Thing and (b) alcohol is legal, that other Bad Things should be legal as well. Finally it assumes that people who take hard drugs and become addicts are simply exercising their God-given right to do what they want with their own bodies. Again I say, when those people become so addicted that they become a drain on society, they become everyone's problem.
Two or more wrongs do not equal a right. No law is 100% effective. No man is an island, and what we do or don't do *does* affect others.
The truth may be inconvenient and tiresome to you, but you'll have to get used to it. What else is it but government bootlicking when someone cheers this nonsense on or tries to justify it?
Da derp dee derp da teedly derpee derpee dum. Rated PG-13.
You are a fool. Stealing is illegal and murdering people is illegal. Punish people who do either of those things, not people who merely ingest a substance into their bodies. You are also assuming that people don't take drugs right now, which is false, so the 'problems' you listed already exist.
Your mentality is already completely opposed to freedom. You do not want a free country if you believe that something should be banned merely because it could be abused or could cause certain people to do something bad; you want collective punishment, and you want government thugs to harass people.
Da derp dee derp da teedly derpee derpee dum. Rated PG-13.
FTFY. Do you not see where your reasoning is flawed?
Your 'fix' doesn't even make sense. Rapists rape, but taking drugs doesn't necessarily mean you'll commit violent crimes.
Your 'fix' also doesn't make since for other reasons, as you can't just substitute drugs for rape and have it automatically reflect reality as if this is some theoretical logic game. We already know from prohibition (of drugs and alcohol) that prohibiting such things increases the power of black markets substantially.
Again I say, when those people become so addicted that they become a drain on society, they become everyone's problem.
If living in a free society means that I have to support those who engage in activities that I may not always agree with, then so be it; I'd rather have that than your government bootlicking. What you suggest is also collective punishment, as you advocate banning entire substances simply because some people who use them become a drain on society. You are anti-freedom.
No law is 100% effective.
Nor are all effective laws just. Nor is prohibition even close to 100% effective.
Da derp dee derp da teedly derpee derpee dum. Rated PG-13.
Do you not see where your reasoning is flawed?
You obviously don't see where yours is. Rape has a victim, someone illegally possessing drugs does not. Dope addicts should not be my problem, but drug laws make them my problem. I live on the edge of the ghetto (I'm a cheap old bastard and it's close to work) and my house has been burglarized twice in four years. When did you ever hear of someone stealing for beer money?
Read this. Prohibition doesn't work.
Free Martian Whores!
This is not about assange you off topic homos
It would be the law. The only reason these laws are still in place is we haven't changed them yet. There's a process for doing that. Using illegal drugs will not help make it happen.
Because we've got pretty good evidence murder and rape law actually reduce murder and rape, while we've seen no indication of the same for drugs. Furthermore, rape and murder are not victimless crimes like drug usage is. Yes, they have ill effects on society, but so do fat and stupid people, and we don't throw them in jail. The only real effects that prohibition has on recreational are shifting money to violent criminals and resulting in more dangerous drugs because of increased potency (because potent drugs are more easily smuggled) and dangerous adulterants in drugs.
And no, needle exchange programs are not enablement any more than free condoms are enablement of sex. The same amount is going to happen either way, but it's safer with these programs.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
If I recall correctly, the claims that alcohol consumption went down were actually statements that the reported usage of alcohol fell sharply. No shit! Making something illegal means it's less visible. Give someone a Nobel prize for that discovery.
Yes, people will still smuggle drugs, but that market will be much smaller and less lucrative than the current drug trade. The question is whether we are better of with drugs illegal or legal, and the answer is pretty overwhelmingly for legal.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Prohibition makes things much more dangerous then they would otherwise be. Cocaine is mostly harmless. Heroin almost certainly wouldn't have become a problem if opium wasn't banned.
IIRC, tolerance scales pretty much linearly with the threat of OD for opiates. That's why certain forms of Vicodin exist with a much higher ratio of Hydrocodone to Acetaminophen. Over time, the user builds up a very high tolerance to Hydrocodone, but not a tolerance Acetaminophen. If they took normal Vicodin of the equivalent dosage, it would destroy their liver, but they are fine on the more potent medicine. If someone without that tolerance were to take those drugs, they would quite easily OD.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
The only reason these laws are still in place is we haven't changed them yet.
The reason we haven't changed them yet is an intensive, decades long propaganda campaign. How do you change that? I'll tell you how.
Using illegal drugs will not help make it happen.
It already has, in Wa and Co. People have been smoking pot, in violation of the law for decades. The more people who smoke pot, the more normal it becomes, and the less effective propaganda is. The best way to end bigotry is for people to interact with the people they are prejudiced against. When you realize that your neighbors or co-workers smoke pot, and they seem like all right guys, you're less likely to support imprisoning them.
On the other hand, if we all sat around and obeyed the law, no one would have any experience with drug users, so they'd have no reason to doubt the official propaganda. Nothing would ever change.
The war on drugs is a war on freedom, and drug users on on the side of freedom.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Let's be clear about this. Silk Road operators had a guy killed.
So has Obama.
They are no different in that regard than the thugs running any other drug gang.
Or the anti-drug gang we call the DEA.
When you buy on the black market, you are paying with blood money that destroys other peoples' lives and livelihoods. You know this is the consequence of your action.
Same as when you pay your taxes, or buy coca-cola, bananas, iphones, diamonds, or gasoline.
You can go ahead and blame the government if you want, but YOU are providing the money that gets people killed.
The government is the one that created the black market. They know this is the consequence of their action. They bear complete responsibility for failing to regulate the drug market safely.
Yes, maybe the product should be legal. If so and you care, talk to your representatives. Start a political campaign. But DO NOT pay the murderous racket that brings you illegal drugs.
Right, and if we all stopped using drugs, and asked nicely for drug prohibition to be repealed, what do you think would happen? Why would they listen to us when from their perspective prohibition would have been a complete success? Resistance is the only way we ever win freedom.
This. And also they would never willingly give up their legal basis for all the physical and other types of interdiction they have as the result of drugs prohibition.
"Oh now drugs are legal there's no longer any justification for the vast majority of street searches, wiretaps, seizures, home invasions... so we must remove these rights from the cops"
Yeahhhh right
Just taking a page from your playbook fucktard by using circular reasoning. Fucktards like you use "Drugs are illegal because they are bad. Drugs are bad because they are illegal" is your whole fucking point. Tell me fucktard, how are cannabis, LSD, psychadellic mushrooms, or DMT even harmful? Can you answer any of them without using circular reasoning or are you that fucking stupid?
Also, if we all just "sat around" and obeyed the law, there would be no black market and no drug gang killings.
Oh really? When someone quits tobacco, alcohol, or caffeine do they exhibit physical withdrawal symptoms such as agitation, anxiety, muscle aches, Increased tearing, Insomnia, runny nose, sweating, yawning, abdominal cramping, diarrhea, dilated pupils, goose bumps, nausea, and vomiting? Nope, they only get that with heroin. Nicotine, alcohol, and caffeine are not nearly as physically addictive as any opiate or cocaine. Even with cocaine being as physically addictive as it is it can still be consumed safely if it is in the form of coca leaf tea. Even the consumption of coffee and alcohol can have some health benefits. What health benefits does someone get with the consumption of heroin? They don't.
As for tobacco I would have to agree. Even though there are people that can smoke an occasional cigar or pipe and there are people that can make a pack of cigarettes last a whole week the danger is from the second-hand smoke. Tobacco smoke is an environmental hazard plus tobacco is highly deadly to eat in any form. Coca leaves and cannabis are not. I say make tobacco totally illegal. Until they can make heroin work without the nasty withdrawal symptoms it needs to remain illegal. The drugs that should be legalized and regulated are, with the exception of pcp, psychedelics(LSD, DMT, cannabis). Coca leaves should be legal and regulated . If someone wants to make cocaine HCL or crack cocaine from the coca leaves for their own personal use then let them. The can't sell or give it away though.
Oh really? When someone quits tobacco, alcohol, or caffeine do they exhibit physical withdrawal symptoms such as agitation, anxiety, muscle aches, Increased tearing, Insomnia, runny nose, sweating, yawning, abdominal cramping, diarrhea, dilated pupils, goose bumps, nausea, and vomiting? Nope, they only get that with heroin. Nicotine, alcohol, and caffeine are not nearly as physically addictive as any opiate or cocaine.
While it's true the physical withdrawal symptoms of heroin are pretty bad, that's not actually a good indicator of the addictiveness. People don't (only) fail to quit or avoid quitting a substance because they can't handle the withdrawal, they do so because they 'feel they need' the substance - that's what addiction is.
That aside, these other substances aren't without their withdrawal symptoms as well:
Also note that the symptoms you listed for heroin withdrawal are 'worst case' - not everyone goes through that, just as many alcoholics can quit without all of the nasty symptoms I just listed.
My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
There would also be no freedom. Remember, it's "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". You don't get to decide how I pursue happiness. If you do, you're a tyrant.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Oh really? When someone quits tobacco, alcohol, or caffeine do they exhibit physical withdrawal symptoms such as agitation, anxiety, muscle aches, Increased tearing, Insomnia, runny nose, sweating, yawning, abdominal cramping, diarrhea, dilated pupils, goose bumps, nausea, and vomiting? Nope, they only get that with heroin. Nicotine, alcohol, and caffeine are not nearly as physically addictive as any opiate or cocaine.
While it's true the physical withdrawal symptoms of heroin are pretty bad, that's not actually a good indicator of the addictiveness. People don't (only) fail to quit or avoid quitting a substance because they can't handle the withdrawal, they do so because they 'feel they need' the substance - that's what addiction is.
That aside, these other substances aren't without their withdrawal symptoms as well:
Also note that the symptoms you listed for heroin withdrawal are 'worst case' - not everyone goes through that, just as many alcoholics can quit without all of the nasty symptoms I just listed.
You are so full of fucking bullshit and you know it.. Heron is the worst drug out there. It does the most physical harm and people that use it are physically dependent on it. People that come off of it have a very low tolerance to pain and must go through detox just to go through the withdrawal symptoms. But since you are too fucktarded to see the differences I will point them out.
Tobacco - I agree, ban that substance. Even so people that smoke 1 pack of cigarettes per day can go without a cigarette for hours or even weeks at a time.
Caffeine - You are comparing apples with oranges in terms of dosages. Caffeine in moderate or even high amounts daily don't give the withdrawal symptoms you are giving. It only takes an insane amount of coffee or soda to get the results you are presenting.
Alcohol - Again with the bullshit, you said serious alcoholic which is an insane amount of alcohol consumed in a period of time which is remaining drunk constantly. Getting drunk once in a while or even every weekend is not going to cause the withdrawal symptoms you are claiming.
Heroin - Getting high the first time will give withdrawal symptoms far worse than the other three in moderate to high amounts. The withdrawal symptoms of someone that does become addicted will be far worse than all of the other three put together and can even include death. Even if someone doesn't die they will wish they were dead because the symptoms last for up to two week for the physical withdrawal symptoms, after that are the post acute withdrawal symptoms. Those are mainly psychological and boredom, insomnia, self-doubt, 'restless legs,' and depression. I have detoxed a lot of people from heroin and it ain't fuckin
Enjoy the human blood on that joint.
If you're voting for politicians who support the war on drugs, the blood is on your hands.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
If you're voting for politicians who support the war on drugs, the blood is on your hands too.
Corrected.
what used to be considered a basic American freedom, to do with my body as I see fit
The problem is when those people affect those around them, what about them? Our society has decided they had enough of drug dens. So they put some sort of punishment on it.
These people would steal your shirt if you were not looking to pay 15 bucks for something so they can fend off the withdraws for a few more hours.
Theft is illegal, there was already a punishment on it. While we're considering other people, what about the ones that want to use and don't steal things?