Slashdot Mirror


Silk Road 2.0 Deputy Arrested

An anonymous reader writes With the Ulbricht trial ongoing in a case over the original Silk Road, Homeland Security agents have made another arrest in the Silk Road 2.0 case more than two and a half months after the site was shut down. This time they arrested Brian Richard Farrell who went by the moniker "DoctorClu." From the article: "Homeland Security agents tracked Silk Road 2.0 activity to Farrell's Bellevue home in July, according to an affidavit by Special Agent Michael Larson. In the months that followed, agents watched his activities and interviewed a roommate who said Farrell received UPS, FedEx and postal packages daily. One package was found to contain 107 Xanax pills, Larson said. That led to a search on Jan. 2 that recovered computers, drug paraphernalia, silver bullion bars worth $3,900, and $35,000 in cash, Larson said."

126 comments

  1. Odd link substitution by MrBingoBoingo · · Score: 2, Informative

    The original submission to /. linked to http://qntra.net/2015/01/another-big-silk-road-2-0-arrest-full-complaint/ which actually included the complaint text. I don't see how a local San Antonio news outlet is even the slightest bit local to a Washinton State man being arrested in... Washinton State.

  2. Homeland Security? Everyone is a terrorist by troll+-1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    One day the world will be liberated and people will be free to trade. Right now we live in a Kafkaesque dystopia.

    1. Re:Homeland Security? Everyone is a terrorist by kogut · · Score: 0

      When 70% of trade is in illegal drugs and kiddie porn that'd be like a...erm Dicksian dystopia?

    2. Re:Homeland Security? Everyone is a terrorist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everyone IS already a terrorist. Why do you think they intercept everyone's internet traffic and phone calls?

    3. Re:Homeland Security? Everyone is a terrorist by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      One day the world will be liberated and people will be free to trade. Right now we live in a Kafkaesque dystopia.

      Speaking of Kafka, what does "recovered" mean in this sentence: "That led to a search on Jan. 2 that recovered computers, drug paraphernalia, silver bullion bars worth $3,900, and $35,000 in cash, Larson said."

      I always thought the "recover" was the antonym of "steal", but they are using it as a synonym.

    4. Re:Homeland Security? Everyone is a terrorist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Correct me if I'm wrong: computers and silver are still legal.

    5. Re:Homeland Security? Everyone is a terrorist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      I believe a single computer is still legal. Multiple computers is clearly more than a typical citizen needs and therefore suggests intent to traffic.

    6. Re:Homeland Security? Everyone is a terrorist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "One day the world will be liberated and people will be free to trade. "

      That day has past.

    7. Re:Homeland Security? Everyone is a terrorist by circletimessquare · · Score: 3, Insightful

      we do live in a world where we are liberated and free to trade

      except for items which are deemed illegal for a given reason

      some of those reasons are stupid. so we change the laws. for example: marijuana is becoming legal. isn't that amazing? the population actually has a voice and can vote and change their laws. hmmm... that's not very dystopian nor kafkaesque

      heroin and meth and kiddie porn and RPGs never will be legal. go ahead, put it to vote. i think marijuana should be legal. most agree with me. i don't think i want my neighbor getting grenades in the mail. most will agree with me

      maybe you're a horrible repressed minority denied your god given freedom to hand grenades in the mail?

      or maybe you're a hysterical drama queen who thinks all of society is hell just because you can't get hand grenades in the mail?

      "think of the children" is often used as a show of how hysterical people can be panicked into giving up freedoms. well, it is equally braindead hysterical to think you're entire reality is a hellish dystopian fasicst authoritarian state of no freedoms... just because you can't get kiddie porn or meth in the mail?

      i'm going to go way out on a limb here, see if you can bear with me for a moment, with a really radical mind blowing concept: we actually don't live in a fascist state. just because you can't get plutonium or bazookas in the mail, doesn't mean your country is basically the same as north korea. i know, really wacky far out concept dude. whoa

      do you think society has no right to restrict material which causes harm?

      it does

      and it always will

      forever

      because some substances/ items actually cause harm and have no fucking reason to be in civil society

      ever

      the concept of freedom?

      completely untouched by this simple truth

      we, society, LIKE restrictions on, for example, kiddie porn. and we support our government, which we elect, to enforce those restrictions. and we always will. because we don't want children harmed and... most important point here... drum roll please... harming children infringes on their rights and freedoms. WHOA DUDE, FAR OUT

      if some substance, like marijuana, should obviously not be restricted, because that's fucking stupid, we actually change the fucking laws. and we did. and we will on any other laws about restrictions which makes no fucking sense

      this is where you get really mad at me and compare me to an authoritarian freedom crushing "statist" goon... just because i don't want people freely trading in kiddie porn or heroin. which would make you a brainless teenaged drama queen. let's hope you're not

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    8. Re:Homeland Security? Everyone is a terrorist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, they can trade, comrade - but they must only trade approved items!

      You would do well to remember this.

    9. Re:Homeland Security? Everyone is a terrorist by kogut · · Score: 1

      Oh, they can trade, comrade - but they must only trade approved items!

      You have it backwards. There is no whitelist - almost everything is legal to trade, so that'd be silly.

      There's a blacklist for things that are illegal. Effectively.

    10. Re:Homeland Security? Everyone is a terrorist by kogut · · Score: 0

      Enough with our rational response. This is the Slashdot comment section. Only shrill, hyperbolic, melodramatic exaggeration is acceptable.

    11. Re:Homeland Security? Everyone is a terrorist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure enough silver bullion to purchase a 10-year-old Saturn Ion is still legal.

    12. Re:Homeland Security? Everyone is a terrorist by blue+trane · · Score: 1

      If he had pot, it was at least legal under Wa state law.

    13. Re:Homeland Security? Everyone is a terrorist by blue+trane · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What's the real problem with heroin? It's the warlike conditions under which it has to be obtained and used, because of the laws. Many heroin users can be productive and would not turn to crime if they could get it legally.

      If someone OD's, and they had all the information they wanted about dosage, etc., then they wanted to die or didn't care, and you should have intervened before they OD'd instead of paying lip service to "human tragedies" etc.

    14. Re:Homeland Security? Everyone is a terrorist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You are new here. I will forgive you for feeding a long-sleeping troll. But for fuck's sake man, don't do it in the future. This is circletimessquare. Look at the username up there. See it? See the link to his homepage?

      The guy is a certified, grade A crackpot.

    15. Re:Homeland Security? Everyone is a terrorist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seizures != Verdicts.

      Knives are also perfectly legal, but they can also be seized if they are believed to be used in murders.

      Now it's up to HS to prove in court that the items seized were used for (or in the case of money, rewarded from) trafficking drugs. If they cannot prove it, he'll get it all back.

    16. Re:Homeland Security? Everyone is a terrorist by Harlequin80 · · Score: 4, Informative

      You have forgotten the financial costs on society. If you have a society with any kind of social system, welfare, social healthcare or similar heroin cost society are large amount of money. It was why it was banned in the first place. Currently the US estimates that it spends $5 Billion on health care costs associated with heroin use. In addition it is estimated that heroin costs about $11 billion in lost productivity.

      People ODing is also not a black and white situation. You take too big a dose and collapse, do we leave you to lie there till you die? Or do we take steps to save your life? Ambulances, doctors, nurses, treatment etc. Or lets say you have died. Then what? Do we leave your body there to rot, how do we deal with your assets? Your debts?

      It may come as a surprise but when you live in a group your action effect the others in the group. That means your actions have a cost to the people around you. In some instances society as a whole decides the cost of an individual activity is too great for the group to accept and that activity is banned. If you as an individual do not like that you, as the individual, have to leave that group.

    17. Re:Homeland Security? Everyone is a terrorist by circletimessquare · · Score: 1, Insightful

      heroin is highly addictive. it's stronger than willpower. it takes over your life. you can't work or maintain relationships. it destroys lives

      "i know a guy who uses heroin all the time and makes six figures..." yeah, and i know pink panda that eats moonrocks. basic biochemistry is not denied when you are talking about a drug like heroin. it overwhelms your brain chemistry and overpowers your willpower. you *will* become an addict and your life *will* be destroyed. heroin is stronger than you. no one, absolutely no one, is stronger than heroin

      "if Philip Seymour Hoffman had access to legal heroin he would be alive today..." you build up a tolerance. you need more and more to maintain your high. eventually, your tolerance threshold, and the threshold where the dose kills you via respiratory depression, begins to overlap. so there is no way to continue your addiction without killing yourself. you must take less than your need demands, or you will die. if you choose life, you must choose a lower dose, so you will have withdrawal. heroin withdrawal is a torturous hell perhaps like no other torture mankind has devised. death might seem better

      "it's my life, i can destroy it if i want to..." except you aren't an island. when you become a useless addict, the rest of society has to clothe and feed your useless ass. i'd rather prevent you from becoming useless in the first place. society is not in the business of letting people die, and never will be. the disrespect to your own life by using heroin might rule your world, but it doesn't rule society. if you can get ten pounds of pure heroin and move to the center of greenland and use until you're dead and beyond the reach of all society's help, go ahead. but if you're going to use heroin and become an addict in the civilized world, you just forced us to make your problem our problem. $$$

      "addicts should get healthcare not jail..." i agree 100%. programs to get people into withdrawal and back onto a stable life without heroin is what society needs to do, not lock up nonviolent addicts. and then what? well, they can't do heroin anymore. which means *control*. which is what society already does by cracking down on drug trade. and here we are, at the beginning of this topic

      i love portugal. please note: heroin is still illegal in portugal and those who *sell* heroin still go to jail. in other words, the war on drugs still continues in portugal, it's just that portugal uses better *tactics* in the war on drugs than the USA does: healthcare instead of jail for nonviolent addicts

      the war on drugs always existed, and always will. ever since the tribe notice groog just wants to lay around drinking fermented fruit juice all day instead of carrying his weight foraging for mushrooms or going on the hunt, society has noticed drugs are a problem. people have problems. they need help. society should offer help. using drugs is just a symptom you need help in your life, not an actual help. drugs are used to blot out the pain of a painful life for some. the problem is, substituting the temporary pain of a failed relationship or being fired from a job, with a permanent life hobbling addiction, does not help, and never will. still, as long as people live in a society where free will is respected, some people with problems will take their free will and use it to commit slow motion suicide with drugs, making themselves society's problem

      so the war on drugs (which includes the notion of helping addicts, but will never include free trade in drugs as hardcore as heroin) always existed and always will exist

      it's just a maintenance function of civilization

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    18. Re:Homeland Security? Everyone is a terrorist by blue+trane · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In a democracy, I as an individual have an unalienable right to speak up and change the laws.

      The financial costs are a result of the laws. We produce a vast oversupply, more than enough to take care of everyone. Heroin users can be productive and contribute to society. It is the laws that drive them underground and to crime that cause the drag.

      Heroin use is a case of civil rights, not finance. We should not ask "how much does it cost?" but "is it the right thing to do, to legalize heroin?"

      Finance is all about funding things today based on future returns. And as the private sector has proven again and again, when those future returns don't materialize, it is perfectly okay to create money (via the Fed) to bail out the financiers. Why can't we do the same for individuals?

      Even Kenneth Rogoff agrees that it would have been better to bail out homeowners instead of banks:

      Without question the best and most effective approach to the problem would have been to bail
      out the subprime homeowners directly, forcing banks to take losses but keeping them manageable.
      For an investment of perhaps a few hundred billion dollars, the US Treasury could have saved
      itself from a financial crisis whose cumulative cost, counting lost output, already runs into many,
      many trillions of dollars. Instead of "saving Wall Street," a subprime bailout would have been
      targeted, almost by definition, at lower-income households. But unfortunately, this approach too
      would have been politically impossible prior to the crisis.

      The question is why politics makes impossible the obviously "best and most effective approach". I think we see something similar with drug prohibition. It becomes a political thing and reason goes out the window.

    19. Re:Homeland Security? Everyone is a terrorist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We're talking about useless fucking drug addicts and drug dealers. These are criminals making stupid decisions that harm themselves and others. You have no idea what you are talking about.

    20. Re:Homeland Security? Everyone is a terrorist by blue+trane · · Score: 2

      Heroin was the best medicine I ever had. It calmed me down, made me able to function without the constant "white noise" that makes me so anxious around people. The biggest problem with heroin was its illegality.

      How much music has been produced on heroin? Charlie Parker, John Coltrane, Miles Davis, Keith Richards, Kurt Cobain, Chet Baker, Art Pepper, etc. Obviously you can execute lots of intricate muscle movements to control the sound produced by your instrument, while high. Listen to Charlie Parker Live at Carnegie Hall; it's documented that he shot up right before the concert. Can you hear it in his playing? Can you hear his creativity and energy?

      While recording "Kind of Blue" the story goes that all the musicians would be off shooting up before takes. And Kind of Blue sold, and still sells.

      In conclusion, heroin is a tool, a technology, a medicine. Give everyone access to all the knowledge we have and let each person decide for themselves. Also, do research to eliminate unwanted side effects, to produce better drugs. And just let ppl choose for themselves.

    21. Re:Homeland Security? Everyone is a terrorist by triffid_98 · · Score: 1

      Edgar Allen Poe
      Oscar Wilde
      John Keats
      Lewis Carroll
      Robert Louis Stevenson
      Charles Dickens
      Florence Nightengale


      ...notorious opium abusers every one...fortunately for us they lived in a time before it was demonized, or they wouldn't have been able to make their various contributions to society.

    22. Re:Homeland Security? Everyone is a terrorist by Procrasti · · Score: 1

      Firstly, it's not magical... Will power or not, some get addicted, most do not. I mean, assuming you want to deal with this rationally rather than just emotionally. So, you have to deal with facts, not propaganda... For example, 23% of users become addicts, no where near 100%... most addicts quit by the time they are 40... Most heroin users are lucid, functional and capable of holding jobs.

      From an economics point of view, people who are addicted simply find that heroin has a high utility for them. We know this from the basics of economics, a persons actions reveals their preferences... If a person prefers heroin to anything else, then why are we restricting them the one thing they desire? It would be like outlawing masturbation cause some people masturbate to the exclusion of all the things you have mentioned.

      Finally... where these people are a cost to society, then all we require is pigouvian taxes, and the issue is economically corrected (minimises dead weight losses due to heroin use). With these we can easily cover increased health care costs and rehabilitation costs... and all the money we save on enforcement costs too!

      We are making heroin users a burden on society through our policies, rather than making them pay their own way and allowing the free market to operate efficiently.

    23. Re:Homeland Security? Everyone is a terrorist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, it is more likely that if they cannot prove it, he will spend six months in jail without bail, be illegally pressured to accept a plea bargain (which 99% of all accused persons do) and then released. Actually getting his stuff back requires that he file a separate form that basically sues the government to hand it over.

    24. Re:Homeland Security? Everyone is a terrorist by Mullen · · Score: 5, Informative

      All of the financial costs related to heroin use comes from enforcement and criminalization of heroin, hardly any of the damage comes from use of heroin.

      All crime related to heroin addiction comes from the cost of getting heroin. If it was legal or could be purchased if the buyer could be proven to be an addict, then the cost would be lower and the addict would not need to steal. All of the violence from addiction comes from the ability to not get heroin legally.

      OD'ing comes from heroin purity not being controlled. If all legally sold heroin was the same purity, then addicts would OD a lot less.

      AID's and the spreading of disease of heroin users comes from sharing needles and lack of access to medicine. If heroin was legal or medically dispensed, then addicts could also have access to clean needles.

      Addicts are forced to operate in the shadows and out of the eye of government and medical professionals. If you made heroin legal or medically accessible, then addicts could start working on getting clean or at least not getting worse.

      --
      Linux O Muerte!
    25. Re:Homeland Security? Everyone is a terrorist by DaHat · · Score: 1

      Where is this democracy you live in? I suspect not here in the United States where while officially it is a Federal Republic... though has since well moved into the post-constitutional arena, where unelected and largely unaccountable bureaucrats have huge sway, and elected 'leaders' no longer feel themselves restrained by the laws they swore to uphold.

    26. Re:Homeland Security? Everyone is a terrorist by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      the idea you need a drug to be creative is a tired old chestnut that requires no refutation by anyone serious. at worst, there are talentless hacks who take drugs because they think it makes them brilliant or for the subculture mystique. but now they are just drug addicted talentless hacks

      some take it to be more productive. of course, they're just borrowing time from later, when the drug fucks their lives up so much they're far less productive for a much longer time, or, far worse, dead. gee, it's great they snorted lines and were productive for an extra week. too bad they're far less productive when they crash for months, or worse, lose decades of their life. gee, what a great productivity boost. think about how much more these artists would have contributed more of had they actually fucking lived instead of killed by drugs. and if you don't believe me, ask keith richards and why he quit (below)

      if you take heroin because you think it makes your art better, you're interfering with your productivity later when you're still alive, if you're still alive. you decrease your output overall. short term gain, much larger long term loss. whatever edge you think the drugs take off there are many better ways to take off the edge without destroying your fucking life. but don't take my word for it: stop lying to yourself and those of us who actually know better and know all the ins and outs of the bullshit rationalizations, and listen to the truth...

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...

      Parker died on March 12, 1955, in the suite of his friend and patron Baroness Pannonica de Koenigswarter at the Stanhope Hotel in New York City, while watching The Dorsey Brothers' Stage Show on television. The official causes of death were lobar pneumonia and a bleeding ulcer, but Parker also had an advanced case of cirrhosis and had suffered a heart attack. The coroner who performed his autopsy mistakenly estimated Parker's 34-year-old body to be between 50 and 60 years of age.[16]

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J...

      Coltrane died from liver cancer at Huntington Hospital on Long Island on July 17, 1967, at the age of 40. His funeral was held four days later at St. Peter's Lutheran Church in New York City. The service was opened by the Albert Ayler Quartet and closed by the Ornette Coleman Quartet. Coltrane is buried at Pinelawn Cemetery in Farmingdale, New York. The biographer Lewis Porter has suggested that the cause of Coltrane's illness was hepatitis, although he also attributed the disease to Coltrane's heroin use.[21]

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...

      During the last years of Miles Davis's life, there were rumors that he had AIDS, something that he and his manager Peter Shukat vehemently denied.[5][61] According to Quincy Troupe by that time Davis was taking azidothymidine (AZT), a type of antiretroviral drug used for the treatment of HIV/AIDS.[21][62]

      http://healthland.time.com/201...

      In Richards’s new memoir, Life, one of the most interesting revelations about recovery involves the role of music, his work and passion, in the rocker’s decision to give up heroin and cocaine. For a time, drugs helped fuel his work — many of the Stones’ greatest songs were written during the peak of Richards’s drug use. But eventually, his heroin habit turned on him, threatening his ability to make music at all, which prompted him to quit. (More on Time.com: Addiction Files: Recovering From Drug Addiction, Without Abstinence)

      Certainly, Richards had countless reasons to quit drugs — he’d suffered the death of

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    27. Re:Homeland Security? Everyone is a terrorist by Procrasti · · Score: 1

      You don't have a right to other people's productivity... If people want to live short exciting lives... or even short boring lives addicted to drugs, that is their choice... not yours.

      Everyone has their own meaning to life, and by controlling people's choices, you are imposing your own meaning on them... and that meaning is meaningless to them.

      People are best off when they are free to make their own informed decisions... When you limit their options, they are always worse off.

    28. Re:Homeland Security? Everyone is a terrorist by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      there is no destroyer of freedom, in the history of our species, than drug addiction

      the most sadistic fascist authoritarian torturer in his wildest imagination could not devise a greater freedom destroyer than putting bars in your mind. a constantinterrupt switch, where instead of thinking about art or philosophy or science... gotta get my fix... gotta get my fix... gotta get my fix. permanent degradation

      nevermind the logical paradox of it all: "you can't deny me my freedom... to destroy my freedom" wha?

      to PREVENT you from removing your freedom is the PRESERVATION of your freedom

      it really is like the question surrounding suicide. if your mind is sound and your body is unsound, yeah, suicide is ok. but if your body is sound and your mind is unsound, suicide is a sign of sickness to be treated. and drug addiction is nothing more than slow motion suicide

      you can prevent people from using highly addictive drugs and preserve their freedom. preventing drug addiction is fighting for freedom. because the drug is the greater threat to it

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    29. Re:Homeland Security? Everyone is a terrorist by circletimessquare · · Score: 2

      Firstly, it's not magical... Will power or not, some get addicted, most do not.

      see i stopped reading there. you're right, it's not magic, it's the basic science of pharmacology

      what you said is akin to saying gravity makes some people fall down, but not most. or only a few take an effective dose of potassium chloride and die, the rest live. or many can take an effective dose of lsd and feel no effects

      it doesn't work that way

      we're not talking about sensation, mood, feeling. we're talking about biology, chemistry, science. there is no escape or bending the power heroin has over your basic circuits of biological need. on heroin, you can forego human contact, sex... food. everything. heroin roots deeper than all of the basic biological drives. and your body, having identified something that answers it's drives far stronger than your normal drives, seeks that, turns to that, a force stronger than anything your mind can hold against it (and then your mind, capable of rationalizing anything, regurgitates crap like you just wrote)

      the chemistry of opiates interferes with basic biochemical pathways in the brain far deeper and stronger than any conscious control

      everyone, absolutely *everyone* gets addicted to heroin, it's just a matter of time. it's simple chemistry

      you should stop talking about a subject you don't understand, or stop with your paper thin bullshit junkie rationalizations

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    30. Re:Homeland Security? Everyone is a terrorist by hermitdev · · Score: 1

      Pray tell: what is illegal about being pressured to accept a plea bargain?

    31. Re:Homeland Security? Everyone is a terrorist by Procrasti · · Score: 1

      That's a very strange philosophy you have... Is there any theory which backs it up, or is it just an assertion you've created from nothing?

      I prefer a much stronger theoretical basis in what we have the rights to limit other people's actions... they are the four assumptions of the free market, in which we can prove mathematically that if fulfilled they lead to everyone being better off and no one being worse off... It maximises people's individual utility.

      The four assumptions are, no externalities, perfect demand and supply competition, full information and rational actors (you better look up the meaning of this before you go on and assume I'm talking about mental illness here).

      If a person has complete information on the pros and cons of a given action, and does not interfere with other people's choices, then interfering with that person's choice through force is an externality and decreases that person's utility.

      If a person of unsound mind considers their life will not be worth living... then that is ultimately up to them to decide... This means they consider life to have a negative utility... You should ultimately respect their desires... though some delaying tactics are acceptable... beyond that it would be immoral to deny them their choice. Have you ever considered being forced to live in a world where your own mind is attacking you? An escape option is the only humane option.

      Same with drugs... once a person has full information, and we do have good drug awareness now... it should be left up to the individual if it suits their own utility or not... As long as they aren't creating negative externalities (theft, robbery, murder), they should be free to persue their choices, irrespective of your beliefs.

      Being locked in a prison cell, with real concrete walls and iron bars, is far worse than any theoretical chemical prison that I can easily satisfy and continue on with my life with. The ones creating the prison, where it becomes a real life focus and hassle to maximise my utility, are the ones that have decided that I have to pay black market prices to black market criminals to satisfy those desires.

    32. Re:Homeland Security? Everyone is a terrorist by Procrasti · · Score: 1

      you should stop talking about a subject you don't understand, or stop with your paper thin bullshit junkie rationalizations

      If you are not talking from personal experience, you are the one who does not understand the topic. Although I am not a junky or an addict, I have used opiates in the past.

      What you believe and what is reality are two different things. You only need to look at Rat Park experiment to see that your biological understanding of heroin is wrong.

      Rat's trapped in cages take heroin to the exclusion of everything else. Rat's that are then moved to a social, mentally fulfilling environment then stop taking heroin. This suggests that the rats trapped in cages are self medicating... the drug maximises their utility in that situation... in a better environment no longer need the drug to maximise their utility.

      Now, this does not suggest that we have to build utopia to stop people taking heroin... It suggests that for some people life just sucks no matter what, and allowing them to chose to take or not take heroin will maximise their utility, and therefore make them happiest.

    33. Re:Homeland Security? Everyone is a terrorist by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      the most insidious vicious freedom destroying authoritarian government possible, would dose the populace with heroin, as the ultimate exertion of absolute control

      there exists nothing that is capable of destroying free will better than hard drugs

      bars in the mind, an interrupt switch in your very consciousness, is far greater control against your free will than any physical restraint possible

      and look:

      authoritarian control via hard drug:

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

      the fascist origins:

      http://www.tofugu.com/2012/04/...

      war and imperialism achieved through hard drug:

      http://www.victorianweb.org/hi...

      you want to destroy freedom? meth, heroin, coke... nothing destroys freedom better

      that some cotton candy heads might actually *choose* to destroy their freedom is only a testament to ignorance, stubborn deluded cluelessness, desperate pain without proper social help, and loopy rationalizations

      there is no greater fight at preserving and extending freedom than the basic maintenance effort of civilization to minimize the drug trade

      drugs destroy lives and freedom at a root far deeper than any social hierarchy or political ideology: chemistry over mind

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    34. Re:Homeland Security? Everyone is a terrorist by Procrasti · · Score: 1

      You have nothing to back that assertion up... I might as well say nothing destroys freedom more than being an idiot arguing against drug legalisation on the internet... It's a baseless assertion. If you can't argue without making baseless assertions, you have no argument.

      Rat Park simply proves you wrong... And this is in line with all economic choices... In a given environment, the best course of action, the one that brings you the most happiness, may be to take drugs... in a different environment, the choices differ.

      I know many meth, coke and heroin users and addicts... As long as they are not harming anyone else, they are making rational economic decisions that maximise their own happiness.

      The problem is people like you, who aren't content to make decisions for yourself, but wish to make decisions for everyone else. You believe you have enough information to be in someone else's head and can decide what will make them happiest when you aren't them.

      That is arrogance of the highest order, and flies in the face of modern economic theories.

      How about you take care of yourself, and instead of using force, guns, violence and the threat of imprisonment, let other people take care of themselves?

      And before you mention that you will lose out from their contribution to society that you would have extracted from them against their will by denying them their own freedom of choice, or mention that you will have to pay for their asses to be on welfare, please consider that I have already mentioned pigouvian taxes as the solution to these problems.

    35. Re:Homeland Security? Everyone is a terrorist by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      yes, if we lived in a utopia where all our needs were taken care of, and we had the tiny minds of fucking *rodents*, opiates might be easy to get off and on

      but being creatures with complex minds aware of existential stresses and the simple pain and drudgery of daily life that no rat can conceptualize, there is no rat park that ever could be constructed that would satisfy us more than something like heroin

      Agent Smith: Did you know that the first Matrix was designed to be a perfect human world? Where none suffered, where everyone would be happy. It was a disaster. No one would accept the program. Entire crops were lost. Some believed we lacked the programming language to describe your perfect world. But I believe that, as a species, human beings define their reality through suffering and misery. The perfect world was a dream that your primitive cerebrum kept trying to wake up from. Which is why the Matrix was redesigned to this: the peak of your civilization.

      we're not rats. there is no rat park for us

      because we *think*. and for those of us suicidal to replace reality with heroin, reality, as *humans* see it, is never better

      that some cotton candy heads might actually *choose* to destroy their freedom is only a testament to ignorance, stubborn deluded cluelessness, desperate pain without proper social help, and loopy rationalizations

      there is no greater fight at preserving and extending freedom than the basic maintenance effort of civilization to minimize the drug trade

      drugs destroy lives and freedom at a root far deeper than any social hierarchy or political ideology: chemistry over mind

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    36. Re:Homeland Security? Everyone is a terrorist by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      You have nothing to back that assertion up... I might as well say nothing destroys freedom more than being an idiot arguing against drug legalisation on the internet... It's a baseless assertion.

      i stopped reading there. if you understood the chemistry of opiates, you would understand they hijack basic reward pathways in the brain stronger than any want, desire, or need we could ever have: social contact, sex, even food

      how can you take a thinking human being, root all of their wants, needs, and desires to opium instead, and not call that the destruction of freedom? i'm just an empty voice on the internet, i have no power over you. you think that's in the same league as a chemical which interrupts every single motivation possible?

      take someone whose thought is art, philosophy, science... and replace it with a zombie that thinks... fix, fix, i need my fix. if i give you a lobotomy... are you as free as before the lobotomy? addiction is nothing but a chemical lobotomy

      there is no better way to crystallize and perfect the destruction of human freedom, than at the very chemical roots of our brain

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    37. Re:Homeland Security? Everyone is a terrorist by Procrasti · · Score: 2

      you would understand they hijack basic reward pathways in the brain stronger than any want, desire, or need we could ever have: social contact, sex, even food

      I stopped reading there... drug addicts I know still seem to eat.

      And what is your obsession with sex anyway? Like anyone who doesn't want social contact or sex may as well not be living their life?

      The rest is irrelevant. You're placing your utility function into the heads of others... You suggest people should be into art, philosophy or science? This might surprise you, but many people have no interest in these things.

      What matters is people's utility... What makes them happy... not what makes you happy. This is a fundamental theorem of economics, that everyone has a different utility function, and we should allow people to maximise their own utility, as long as it does not diminish other people's utility.

      You're argument is a direct contradiction to this philosophy. You want other people to be made happy by the things that make you happy... but humans do not operate like this, they operate on their utility functions.

      And again, Rat Park completely destroys your biological overriding chemical imprisonment theories of addiction. Where there are better options than heroin available, then the rats will freely choose those options, even when we previously had them addicted to heroin. There is no reason to suggest this isn't also the case with humans as the economic agents instead of rats.

      Again, the fact that you are willing to impose your utility on others, through force, means you are going directly against modern economic theory. You are the negative externality, you are decreasing other people's happiness.

    38. Re:Homeland Security? Everyone is a terrorist by Procrasti · · Score: 1

      Excuse me... but I did not suggest the end goal to be to stop people taking heroin... That is you imposing your view of heroin use onto my statements... In fact, I directly addressed this issue... That it is more humane to allow the rats to use heroin when they are trapped in a cage, and it is more humane to allow humans to use heroin, when they are trapped in this figurative cage we call modern day living.

      Precisely because we cannot provide those suffering from the desperate pain of life experience the proper social help they require that we should allow them the option of self medication... because it MAXIMISES THEIR UTILITY.

      You should stop dictating what choices other people make, an focus on your decisions, and educate people, so they are fully informed of the dangers of their choices, but threatening them with negative externalities for making those decisions by arguing they should be locked up, punished and forced to pay black market prices and deal with criminals can only diminish other people's utility.

    39. Re:Homeland Security? Everyone is a terrorist by rtb61 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      No plea bargain, we want the trial every single time. Don't care how much it costs, we want the evidence submitted for public review, we want investigatory procedure to be shown as valid, we want the accused to have their day in court, we want a fair trial where the government proves it's case. Not once but every single time because that is justice being seen to be observed. We do not want justice based upon extortion, we do not want justice based upon accusation and torture until you confess, we do not want guilty please with small sentences under threat of huge sentences that is not justice, that is a blatant corruption, why because greedy shit heads want cheaper injustice for the majority poor (guilty until you can spend enough to prove you are innocent) whilst they themselves get their own version of injustice for the rich (they are guilty of nothing just suffering from affluenza and that apparently is also our fault for letting the get so rich in the first place).

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    40. Re:Homeland Security? Everyone is a terrorist by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      drugs are the negative externality

      an addict is not happy

      in fact, their capacity for happiness has been permanently degraded, even after they kick the habit. whatever temporary pain they had has been replaced by a permanent reduction in range of choice. for now their very brain chemistry tells them to feed something that in no way contributes to their happiness or freedom. it is a monkey on their back

      It's like having the worst girlfriend ever, who you are madly in love with but who treats you like shit, makes you sell your car and house and furniture and even your high school yearbook that your crush from 10th grade signed and told you that you were cute. She's told you to stop talking to anyone you've ever cared about, they don't want to talk to you while you're still dating her anyways. You sell your clothes so she can go out and buy new ones. You eat ramen every meal so she ca eat at the best restaurant in town. In the morning you think about her and in the evening you think about her and when you go to take a crap but you can't because you're constipated you're reminded of her. You wake up and if she's not in bed with you you get the chills, your eyes water, you have diarrhea, you sneeze, your muscles ache, you have anxiety, you have depression, you don't want to eat because food isn't appealing even though your stomach is rumbling, you don't particularly want to drink but you're dehydrated so you force yourself to drink some water, and during all this your skin is crawling as if it was dirty covered in goose-bumps from who knows where and you wish you were still asleep so you could at least pretend she was still in the bed with you. But you're awake now. So you get out of bed, and you go find her. Maybe today you won't have to do something that compromises your morals to find out where she's gone, but really you don't even care, as long as there is a way. You walk an hour and forty five minutes to get on the bus. You travel for another 45 minutes on public transportation. You get off at the train station in the bad part of town. All the while you have to shit so bad but you know once you find her that will be solved. You're hungry but dont want to eat, once you find her you can eat. You feel dirty and sad and anxious but once you find her she'll bathe you and make you happy and calm. But right now your walking through the ghetto. You walk another 20 minutes. Maybe it's cold and raining, if so you are so so so cold. Maybe it's hotter than hell and that just makes you feel dirtier. You find a guy that knows where she is. He says he'll go get her and bring her to you. And the cops pass you as you're talking to him and they have to know what's up. What's someone like you doing in this part of town? So the 10 minute wait for her to come back to you accompanied by the guy who could give two shits about you as long as you bring him money seems like an eternity. Maybe he'll run off with her and your money. Maybe she wont be looking so hot today, maybe she won't be herself. Maybe he'll come back with a woman you don't know and don't want to meet but now your money is gone and you're broke and sick and a good few hours away before you can get some more money and the world might as well be over in your opinion. But your girlfriend comes back, he brings her, and she gives you a kiss on the cheek. Then you go home, to your mattress and your overdue rent and the lack of food and the piled up bills and the same clothes you've been wearing for three days and your parents that have called but you never answer and your friends that invite you out but you never go, but you're home and she's there with you. Eventually you go to bed. But she's never there the next morning, and you know she won't be, and you wish someone invented a way to pause time, or go back in time, to that first time you met her, the first couple months when you guys hung out, before she made you sell everything to be with her, but you can't and you're fucked. And you know it.

      http://www.reddit.com/r/Atlant...

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    41. Re:Homeland Security? Everyone is a terrorist by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      they are trapped in this figurative cage we call modern day living.

      taking heroin is merely the temporary relief form the typical pains of existence we all experience, to be replaced with a far far worse and much greater pain of addiction

      whatever problems you had in life before heroin, are now 100x worse after

      You should stop dictating what choices other people make

      i'm an empty voice on the internet, i have no power

      meanwhile, a drug that rewires your basic reward pathways dictates to you with a freedom destroying, happiness destroying power many times greater than the most fascist authoritarian government of hate you can imagine

      wake up from your poorly rationalized denial, or grow some true wisdom about what something like heroin really means to freedom and happiness

      http://www.reddit.com/r/Atlant...

      It's like having the worst girlfriend ever, who you are madly in love with but who treats you like shit, makes you sell your car and house and furniture and even your high school yearbook that your crush from 10th grade signed and told you that you were cute. She's told you to stop talking to anyone you've ever cared about, they don't want to talk to you while you're still dating her anyways. You sell your clothes so she can go out and buy new ones. You eat ramen every meal so she ca eat at the best restaurant in town. In the morning you think about her and in the evening you think about her and when you go to take a crap but you can't because you're constipated you're reminded of her. You wake up and if she's not in bed with you you get the chills, your eyes water, you have diarrhea, you sneeze, your muscles ache, you have anxiety, you have depression, you don't want to eat because food isn't appealing even though your stomach is rumbling, you don't particularly want to drink but you're dehydrated so you force yourself to drink some water, and during all this your skin is crawling as if it was dirty covered in goose-bumps from who knows where and you wish you were still asleep so you could at least pretend she was still in the bed with you. But you're awake now. So you get out of bed, and you go find her. Maybe today you won't have to do something that compromises your morals to find out where she's gone, but really you don't even care, as long as there is a way. You walk an hour and forty five minutes to get on the bus. You travel for another 45 minutes on public transportation. You get off at the train station in the bad part of town. All the while you have to shit so bad but you know once you find her that will be solved. You're hungry but dont want to eat, once you find her you can eat. You feel dirty and sad and anxious but once you find her she'll bathe you and make you happy and calm. But right now your walking through the ghetto. You walk another 20 minutes. Maybe it's cold and raining, if so you are so so so cold. Maybe it's hotter than hell and that just makes you feel dirtier. You find a guy that knows where she is. He says he'll go get her and bring her to you. And the cops pass you as you're talking to him and they have to know what's up. What's someone like you doing in this part of town? So the 10 minute wait for her to come back to you accompanied by the guy who could give two shits about you as long as you bring him money seems like an eternity. Maybe he'll run off with her and your money. Maybe she wont be looking so hot today, maybe she won't be herself. Maybe he'll come back with a woman you don't know and don't want to meet but now your money is gone and you're broke and sick and a good few hours away before you can get some more money and the world might as well be over in your opinion. But your girlfriend comes back, he brings her, and she gives you a kiss on the cheek. Then you go home, to your mattress and your overdue rent and the

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    42. Re:Homeland Security? Everyone is a terrorist by Nyder · · Score: 1

      Heroin was the best medicine I ever had. It calmed me down, made me able to function without the constant "white noise" that makes me so anxious around people. The biggest problem with heroin was its illegality.

      How much music has been produced on heroin? Charlie Parker, John Coltrane, Miles Davis, Keith Richards, Kurt Cobain, Chet Baker, Art Pepper, etc. Obviously you can execute lots of intricate muscle movements to control the sound produced by your instrument, while high. Listen to Charlie Parker Live at Carnegie Hall; it's documented that he shot up right before the concert. Can you hear it in his playing? Can you hear his creativity and energy?

      While recording "Kind of Blue" the story goes that all the musicians would be off shooting up before takes. And Kind of Blue sold, and still sells.

      In conclusion, heroin is a tool, a technology, a medicine. Give everyone access to all the knowledge we have and let each person decide for themselves. Also, do research to eliminate unwanted side effects, to produce better drugs. And just let ppl choose for themselves.

      Heroin is one of the worst drugs I have encountered and used. Very few people can lead a functional life while being a heroin addict. Besides the lying & stealing a person who is addicted will do to their family, there is the mental consequences of it. People that are addicted to heroin are more likely to get mad when something happens, more likely to explode in a rage when shit doesn't go there way. Thinking of others feelings doesn't matter to the heroin addict because all they think about is doing their next fix. Nothing matters but that next fix. Kids are crying, don't care because you are sick and need a fix. Kids are hungry, but you have no food because you need all your money for your next fix.

      Fuck heroin and fuck heroin users. There is NO "good" heroin user. Regardless.

      --
      Be seeing you...
    43. Re:Homeland Security? Everyone is a terrorist by MrBingoBoingo · · Score: 1

      This. I mean Charlie Shrem getting half the jail time of the dude he play the prisoner dilemma game with simply because they both surrendered to the States attourney and Shrem was the better mole... Nothing about this process is justice. Preet Baharara and his legal team are the legal equivalent of pick up artists and they get hammered in appelate courts for this bullshit. Appeals though cost money.

    44. Re:Homeland Security? Everyone is a terrorist by Procrasti · · Score: 1

      drugs are the negative externality

      Total fail of understanding what a negative externality is... You lose the argument on this basis alone.

      an addict is not happy

      Not being happy means nothing... many non addicts are not happy. However, given that they chose the drugs means that they are happier than chosing the alternatives.

      in fact, their capacity for happiness has been permanently degraded, even after they kick the habit. whatever temporary pain they had has been replaced by a permanent reduction in range of choice. for now their very brain chemistry tells them to feed something that in no way contributes to their happiness or freedom. it is a monkey on their back

      Again, irrelevant... The Rat Park experiment also contradicts this statement.

      Yes... some people have a terrible time on heroin, and regret it, and publish long essays on how terrible a decision it was... so do gamblers, sex addicts, adulterers, those who wasted their lives on the internet or persuing whatever personal choices they once considered their life goal. If anything it proves that people are still capable of making a rational decision to quit at some time in the future.

      You cannot dictate another person's utility, and this is what you are arguing for.

    45. Re:Homeland Security? Everyone is a terrorist by Procrasti · · Score: 1

      taking heroin is merely the temporary relief form the typical pains of existence we all experience, to be replaced with a far far worse and much greater pain of addiction

      whatever problems you had in life before heroin, are now 100x worse after

      Again, those are baseless assertions... My drug use has improved my quality of life every single time, meth, heroin, cocaine, lsd, psylocybin, ecstasy, cannibus... all have had positive utility to me.

      For some people, yes, it temporarily removes the pain... for some this is enough to have stopped the intention of suicide and turned their life around... for others it has made their life bearable... and of course, for others they have chosen poorly, and made their life worse...

      But we don't guarantee that the outcomes of your life's decisions are going to be optimal... but we must give you the choice... for removing an option, or rather, adding destructive economic disincentives to making a given choice, can only lower the utility of the outcomes, as you have removed an option, not provided a better one.

      So, for example, if you were to provide the help some people require and they chose this over heroin, you would have a point, but you can't provide that help, so instead you chose to make the lives of those that make that decision even worse... that leads to worse outcomes for everyone.

      No, I'm not immune from addiction... but until I steal from you, or harm you, or cause you problems directly, it's an option I should be free to choose...

      You may be one voice in many, but ignorance can only be dealt with one person at a time... you are clearly ignorant of any rational framework with which to discuss this topic.

    46. Re:Homeland Security? Everyone is a terrorist by Harlequin80 · · Score: 1

      This simply isn't true. Enforcement costs and prosecution costs are definitely there, but the medical costs of heroin are not solely created by the fact that it is criminalised, though I will acknowledge that some of them are.

      Long term exposure to heroin use can cause things like intense depression, impaired cognitive function, damage to the heart, lungs and liver. It can also cause the failure of control of semi-autonomous muscles so people have trouble urinating and the like. All of these create ongoing medical costs that are nothing to do with enforcement.

      I agree that if heroin was legal then it could be dispensed and given clean needles. In Australia we have needle exchange programs in order to prevent the transmission of things like aids and other blood borne diseases. These are a no questions asked service, and they are also done explicitly with no cameras or other ID recording equipment.

      As for the civil rights argument that has been made, that somehow being prevented from being a heroin user is an attack on your civil rights, what about the rights of the people around you to not be negatively impacted by your decisions? Do I not have a civil right to be able to go about my life without it being negatively impacted by you?

    47. Re:Homeland Security? Everyone is a terrorist by Procrasti · · Score: 1

      In a free market, all these costs can be offset by pigouvian taxes... these are simply taxes on the thing that causes the costs... this is not a controversial opinion. So, you sell heroin with taxes that cover these costs.

      As a side note, opiates can be near instantly counteracted with nalaxone. If this drug was made available at the point of purchase and people were supervised, even by another user, then the likelihood of ODs and the like are nearly eliminated.

      As for your rights... you should have the right absolutely not to be negatively impacted by other people's decisions. At the point someone steals from you, or harms you in any other way, you have the right to justice. However, you are negatively impacting their decisions, by not allowing them to trade freely in the things that they chose. So, you are advocating doing to others the very thing you want protection from yourself.

    48. Re:Homeland Security? Everyone is a terrorist by Harlequin80 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Nalaxone will prevent ODs in a lot of cases and counter act the immediate effects of opiates. However it does not prevent the long term damage.

      I am also aware of taxes that attempt to pass the cost of an activity to the people involved. The problem with them is often the tax required is too high so you have the effect of either subsidising it from general tax revenue OR pushing the cost of something so high you are effectively criminalising it via price and people move to finding illicit sources. You see this in the current cost of cigarettes.

      As for the rights. I agree. I am advocating that peoples rights are curtailed in a society. In the same way that I am not allowed to have my stereo playing at 1000db at 2am on a Saturday night. Or to burn off my garbage in a bonfire in the back yard. Or to drive my motorcyle at 200kph. Or any one of a million other laws and by-laws that make our society function.

      You may feel that legalising heroin would have a net benefit on society, I may believe that legalising heroin would be a net penalty on society. These are obviously differences in opinion but the fundamentals of having an individuals rights curtailed for the benefit of society as a greater whole is already there and I'm sure that there are many many cases where you agree with curtailing an individuals rights.

      I am also aware of the concept of if a government has the power to ban all the things I don't like then it will also have the power to ban the things I do.

      As an aside I live in Australia which has a universal health-care system and a universal welfare system. It is not as socialist as say a northern european country but compared to the US you would find it very left wing. If you are ill you are looked after to the best of our ability irrespective of whether you can afford to pay for the care or not. Many of the arguments around rights and what people can and cannot do in the US are settled questions here. Abortion and gun control being the two most obvious ones.

      One of the biggest differences you notice when going to the US from Australia is the disenfranchisement of so much of the population. The obvious poverty and the feeling that they see no way out is actually quite shocking. You can wander around any Australian city at night and feel safe and while there are homeless people the numbers are small (Brisbane has a homeless population of 50, in a city of 2 million). http://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au...

      So perhaps that helps explain where I am coming from when I sit in favour of restricting an individuals rights to something like heroin. I believe that it would be a significant net cost to society to legalise it and the only way for it to not be a net cost would be for society to abandon those who become victims of it. Something I am not willing to advocate.

      Sorry for a ridiculously long rambling post.

    49. Re:Homeland Security? Everyone is a terrorist by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Switzerland seems to have had good results by giving heroin away free to addicts. The key is to give it to them in a way that discourages them to stop.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    50. Re:Homeland Security? Everyone is a terrorist by Procrasti · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I believe you must restrict rights when you generate uncompensated negative externalities... So, when you harm another person, at that point we have the right to restrict your activity with legal means.

      All your examples of laws fit into this category. You can clearly see that you generate uncompensated negative externalities when you play your stereo to the annoyance of your neighbours, or create pollution in your back yard... You might fail to see that I cannot safely use the roads if I can't easily judge your speed. I will likely be surprised that the 200kph motorcycle that I pulled out in front of, that I could barely see a few seconds ago, has now collided with me.

      Laws that don't fit this category are simply unjust, and lower our economic welfare, and this is where the drug laws stick out like a sore thumb in our legal system.

      Now, I know Australia too... there are plenty of drugs here... heroin and meth are being used right now in large quantities... You pay the medical costs anyway... The taxes you say that have to be paid for... they are being paid for... but they come from the wrong sources... they should come from tax of the product. Because right now, the rest of society pays for that... and on top of that we use the criminal justice system to harm them (and prison and criminal records are harm), lowering their economic utility, and spending our own money to do that!

      A taxed market can only be economically more efficient than the current prohibition system... which means both the drug user, and the non-drug users are better off. The money that pays for the costs come from the consumption of the cause of the costs.

      Yes, there'll be a black market in untaxed items... we can stamp on that... like cigarettes... but it is still only a percentage of the full market... which will continue to pay the taxes to cover the entire thing anyway... cause we control the taxes. It certainly beats handing the entire market to the criminals as we currently do with illegal drugs.

      This is true in the US, the UK, Australia.

    51. Re:Homeland Security? Everyone is a terrorist by Harlequin80 · · Score: 1

      You get no disagreement from me with regards to your theory or the fact that those drugs are being used in large quantities or that I am paying for it now.

      The only question I have, and it is an impossible one to answer, is would the economic losses of legalised heroin be higher or lower than the economic losses caused by heroin when it is illegal.

      Would legalising it increase its usage? If yes, would that increased usage cause economic damage and would that damage exceed that currently being suffered while it is illegal?

      I simply don't know the answers to these questions. But I feel that we have gone a little off track here. You obviously acknowledge that heroin usage does come with costs and I started out by pointing out to blue trane that there were costs to its use. And then to Mullen that those costs were not restricted to enforcement costs.

      As an anecdote I once interviewed a senior manager for a role to work on a major project overseeing the construction and maintenance of a large desalination plant. His salary would have been in the mid $200k range. Between meeting with me and meeting with my boss, the CEO, he went into our toilets and shot up. It turned him into a drooling zombie during the next stage of the process. He was in his mid 40s and up until that stage had led a very productive successful life. That decision and that drug destroyed his career. The only upside was he didn't have a family that would have suffered as well.

      Obviously in this case he still obtained the drug illegally so there would be no change there. But the level of dependence he obviously felt, to have to shoot up between interviews terrifies me. It is one of the big reasons I lean against legalising it, I'm not convinced that people can control themselves once they start.

    52. Re:Homeland Security? Everyone is a terrorist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's unfortunate, however, that in the modern age, there really isn't anywhere to leave the group *to*. Even Alaska is no longer fully a wilderness. For all that is gained, some things are lost with "progress."

    53. Re:Homeland Security? Everyone is a terrorist by Procrasti · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The only question I have, and it is an impossible one to answer, is would the economic losses of legalised heroin be higher or lower than the economic losses caused by heroin when it is illegal.

      I've already proven that the total economic costs (in terms of individual utility, which is how we measure things economically) must be decreased under a prohibition market vs a regulated and taxed market... Because utility is literally the thing people chose to do, in fighting it with prohibition you have chosen to take on the negative externalities (say increased universal medical costs) yourself, plus the costs of enforcing the prohibition, plus the negative externality costs you are imposing on the users. You literally pay taxes to imprison non-violent, non-theft drug users, to corrupt police and create powerful gangs that operate in stolen property and forced prostitution.

      Would legalising it increase its usage? If yes, would that increased usage cause economic damage and would that damage exceed that currently being suffered while it is illegal?

      Well... you see... economists study this thing called elasticity... which is exactly how much usage increases or decreases with change in price (including costs such as risking prison time)... It's a well known fact that the demand elasticity for addictive substances is highly inelastic. In simple terms, varying the price has little effect on the amount demanded. You don't see drug users significantly increasing or decreasing their usage no matter how expensive it becomes, or even how cheap it becomes.

      I've seen alcohol kill people. It still shouldn't be illegal. You've never seen someone discover alcohol? You don't think people have lost their jobs over it?

      Any chance you've ever met a heroin user that you didn't know used it?

      I would take your anecdote, and follow your gut instinct and not take heroin because you've seen what it can do to people, and you don't want to end up like that... and you should spread that message. However, that in no way justifies the current criminalisation of free personal choices. It's not for the government (or others) to make our decisions for us.

    54. Re:Homeland Security? Everyone is a terrorist by blue+trane · · Score: 1

      My experience is different. I remember under a bridge, downtown, offering an addict a full syringe, and he only took a little.

      No one's forcing you to shoot up. Why are you generalizing your experience to me? Your mileage may vary.

    55. Re:Homeland Security? Everyone is a terrorist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you for a tyically uninformed post from someone who clearly has no real world knowledge on the subject.

      I work at a large investment bank and earn over £100k a year (not sure what that is in US $s... around 150k I think).

      I would say that the fact I work for such an organisation is more of a burden of society than what I choose to smoke with my coffee. (Afghan #3 brown heroin, as it happens).

    56. Re:Homeland Security? Everyone is a terrorist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The very fact that there is such a thing as "illegal drugs" is already quite Kafkaesque.

    57. Re: Homeland Security? Everyone is a terrorist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are a statist crackpot. FREEDOM! Deal with it! We don't need a mommy.

    58. Re:Homeland Security? Everyone is a terrorist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where do you get your medical 'facts' from? Fox News?

    59. Re:Homeland Security? Everyone is a terrorist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I own one desktop, 2 laptops, a tablet-styled laptop, an iPad and an Android smartphone = 5 computers.
      I guess that makes me a criminal mastermind of the kind you see only in Bond movies.

    60. Re:Homeland Security? Everyone is a terrorist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "...and kiddie porn [...] never will be legal"

      Joop Wilhelmus published child pornography magazine Lolita (Wikipedia info) in the Netherlands for 17 years without being prosecuted. So "kiddie porn" has already been legal. In fact, it still is in several countries, and pedophile activist organizations are not unheard of. Many people, including for example Richard Stallman (source) believe(d) that pedosexual contacts should be legalized. Of course there are various reasons for that, including what we can learn from proper research, but I won't go into that here. All I'm trying to convey is: you can't look into the future, so you cannot tell what will "never" be legal.

    61. Re:Homeland Security? Everyone is a terrorist by DrXym · · Score: 1

      One day the world will be liberated and people will be free to trade. Right now we live in a Kafkaesque dystopia.

      So basically this guy was a freedom fighter? Or just perhaps he was a somewhat tech savvy dealer who didn't give a shit what product he sold or the harm it might cause providing he got his cut?

    62. Re:Homeland Security? Everyone is a terrorist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The part where you're tortured into confession.
      The part where you're charged separately with 300 charges and they'll keep you in jail while fighting the spurious charges for years.

    63. Re:Homeland Security? Everyone is a terrorist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your excuse about "civil society voted on it" means JACK.
      Whites voted that southern blacks were PROPERTY.

      Texas voted that a woman's right to choose was subject to other people's desire to regulate her body. Mercifully the supreme court disagreed

    64. Re:Homeland Security? Everyone is a terrorist by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      Heroin used be legal, until someone decided they could make more money selling synthetics.

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    65. Re:Homeland Security? Everyone is a terrorist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >I've already proven that the total economic cost
      You ain't proved shit.

      You're a moron who doesn't understand what "society" is. Please, go galt and rid us of yourself as soon as possible.

    66. Re: Homeland Security? Everyone is a terrorist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pharmaceutical meth and heroin are both a none issue. (Desoxin / pharmacutical diamorphine).

      Vodka is more dangerous.

    67. Re:Homeland Security? Everyone is a terrorist by maestroX · · Score: 1

      Currently the US estimates that it spends $5 Billion on health care costs associated with heroin use.

      Far more on bank bailouts associated with heroin use.

    68. Re:Homeland Security? Everyone is a terrorist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      because some substances/ items actually cause harm and have no fucking reason to be in civil society

      Like you, for example, Making moral judgments about what others can and cant do based on your immaturity and inability to handle possession of them. shows you dont belong in society. Go die, as you are wasting our resources.

    69. Re:Homeland Security? Everyone is a terrorist by neurovish · · Score: 1

      Heroin was the best medicine I ever had. It calmed me down, made me able to function without the constant "white noise" that makes me so anxious around people. The biggest problem with heroin was its illegality.

      How much music has been produced on heroin? Charlie Parker, John Coltrane, Miles Davis, Keith Richards, Kurt Cobain, Chet Baker, Art Pepper, etc.

      Charlie Parker had cirrhosis and died at 34, "The coroner who performed his autopsy mistakenly estimated Parker's 34-year-old body to be between 50 and 60 years of age."
      John Coltrane died at 40
      Miles Davis lived to be 65, so it doesn't seem like any drugs destroyed his life
      Keith Richards is a skin-suit on a robotic exoskeleton
      Kurt Cobain died at 27
      Chet Baker died of accidental causes while high on cocaine and heroin at 58
      Art Pepper died of a stroke...no idea if drugs contributed at all, but he was also only 56

    70. Re:Homeland Security? Everyone is a terrorist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The thing is heroin is extremely similar to Oxycotin. One is 100% illegal, the other available by prescription.

      Whats kiddie porn? a naked child? a child engaging in the act of sex? a drawing of a naked child? a drawing of a naked child having sex?

      I get what you're saying, and agree. Somethings will always be illegal, and they should be. However, it's not as clear cut as your propose.

      Don't think for a minute that the system works because two states legalized marijuana, there's more parties involved than just 'society'. There's big shady business, and their army of lobbyists. There's racists and people who only think using their emotions.

      I just NEEDED to push you off your soap box, OP was troll indeed.

    71. Re:Homeland Security? Everyone is a terrorist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oh, fuck off, you stuffed shirt asshole...

      1. there are PLENTY of substances/habits/etc which are FAR MORE deleterious to society than -in this case- heroin... YOU are BLATHERING along as if WE ALL made some formal studies and voted on what is/isn't worth getting worked up about... we have not, we have had those decisions IMPOSED ON US, MOSTLY for historically racist reasons, also to protect the LEGAL intoxicants markets, as well as keep a HUGE amount of money laundering profits circulating to PROP UP OUR BANKRUPT BANKING SYSTEM...
      2. do i own my own fucking body or not ? IF you answer that question correctly, a LOT of your idiotic meddling in MY LIFE GOES AWAY, you fucking busybody...
      3. don't care what fucked up moral decisions you make IN YOUR PERSONAL LIFE, why not show THE REST OF US the same courtesy...
      4. there are PLENTY of 'things' which impose a 'cost' on society, THAT DOES NOT MEAN we can simply eliminate them or make them illegal to satisfy the least common denominator moral scold: riding motorcycles without a helmet, pollution, cars, etc, etc, etc... you are picking on ONE aspect of life which 'wrecks' approximately .001% of lives BECAUSE the substances are illegal, NOT BECAUSE of the inherent deadliness of the substance in question...
      5. urine idjit and nobody likes you...

    72. Re:Homeland Security? Everyone is a terrorist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      JERK you are a 'good citizen' keep spewing the propaganda
      The only thing we are protecting is the inflated price of pharma industry.
      Keep drinking your beers for dinner you fool

    73. Re:Homeland Security? Everyone is a terrorist by ultranova · · Score: 1

      because some substances/ items actually cause harm and have no fucking reason to be in civil society

      That can become a convenient excuse to justify forcing your personal preferences on other people. And if "civil society" reaches beneath my skin to claim ownership on my very body itself, it's hard to avoid thinking it as pretty totalitarian.

      the concept of freedom?

      completely untouched by this simple truth

      That is an absurd claim. Of course freedom is affected by regulations. The question is whether a given set of regulations achieves goals worthy of the sacrifices it requires. Which, I suppose, is easy to answer if you, personally, aren't being called to sacrifice any activity you'd like to partake in.

      we, society, LIKE restrictions on, for example, kiddie porn.

      Yes, we do. We, as a society, are addicted to power and enjoy wielding it. That does not make such lording over others right. If anything, this particular addiction has caused more misery than all others combined.

      this is where you get really mad at me and compare me to an authoritarian freedom crushing "statist" goon... just because i don't want people freely trading in kiddie porn or heroin. which would make you a brainless teenaged drama queen. let's hope you're not

      Your entire argument is just one long appeal to authority, mixed with think of the children and with a little bit of an argument from intimidation at the end. You are an authoritarian, or if you prefer, a power addict.

      As for trading "kiddie porn or heroin", these are very different and quite obviously so. Heroin is a chemical substance the production or use of which does not imply harm to anyone or anything except the user. A society might seek to ban it on those grounds, but current one jails addicts so its hard to take seriously it's concern over them. And that doesn't really leave many reasons other than a power trip.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    74. Re:Homeland Security? Everyone is a terrorist by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Next question: how much do we lose to alcohol and tobacco in terms of medical costs and lost productivity? Tobacco appears to be more addictive than heroin, and kicking alcohol isn't a picnic either. People drinking alcohol are also going to be more of a danger to others around them than people taking heroin, except for the problems caused by heroin being illegal.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    75. Re:Homeland Security? Everyone is a terrorist by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Tobacco seems to be harder to kick than heroin. If heroin destroys freedom, then tobacco is worse.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    76. Re:Homeland Security? Everyone is a terrorist by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I get the feeling you don't know what a basic science is. Pharmacology is a science, which means that it's subject to change when we observe things. You have a belief that is sufficient for you to disregard other people's experience and observations and experiments. That's not science. That's faith-based and unscientific.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    77. Re:Homeland Security? Everyone is a terrorist by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      UK Member of Parliament Harriet Harman started her career as legal secretary for the National Council for Civil Liberties (now Liberty), during which time she also represented the Paedophile Information Exchange and the Paedophile Action for Liberation pro-paedophile organisations, where she lobbied Parliament from 1976 until she quit the post to become an elected Member, for the legalisation of sex with children. Her lobbying didn't stop there. As a Cabinet Secretary, she had the Prime minister's ear, and continued to lobby to have the age of consent lowered to just FOUR and for paedophilic images to be decriminalised with the patently ludicrous claim that they were victimless (a minor CANNOT consent nor can a minor engage a contract, how is statutory rape victimless again?). It was her pestering, among others, that resulted in the decriminalisation of sodomy and the lowering of the age of consent to sixteen from 18. She is still an MP (the longest serving current member) and is still attacking not only children through sexual morality, but also family values and in particular men (she is on record as admitting she is a man-hating radical "feminist" notwithstanding the fact that she is married) Source: information in the public domain.

      *PIE and PAL are now basically outlawed organisations, their records sealed and compartmentalised for the simple reason that their memberships include/d some of the most powerful people in the country, including members of Thatcher's Cabinet, current serving members of Parliament, and members of the Royal Family. And that said, I am probably on GCHQ's list of possible low-level domestic terrorists. If I wasn't before.

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    78. Re:Homeland Security? Everyone is a terrorist by Harlequin80 · · Score: 1

      We lose far more than we collect from the taxes on them.

      As far as the government is concerned banning outright tobacco and alcohol would make huge sense. In fact they did try it. The problem for the government is a much larger percentage of the population is happy with people smoking and drinking then there is people happy with them taking heroin. As a result heroin can be banned where as alcohol and tobacco not so much.

      In Tasmania, the little island off the bottom of Australia, the state government is currently considering banning the sale of tobacco products to anyone born in 2000 or later as a permanent measure.

    79. Re:Homeland Security? Everyone is a terrorist by Procrasti · · Score: 1

      No, because Libertarians and Objectivists don't understand the necessity of government regulation in free markets... A Libertarian or Objectivist would be against regulation and taxing of drugs.

      This is standard neo-classical marginalist welfare economics. You can study microeconomics yourself and you will see this is quite standard theory. Modern economists understand that pigovian taxes can be used to offset the dead weight loss in markets caused to society by negative externalities.

      This means tax the drugs to cover the cost to society. You are already paying these costs, you've just moved who pays for them to yourself, and not the drug user... and literally making everyone's life worse by not allowing people to pursue their own choices when they do not limit other people's choices.

    80. Re:Homeland Security? Everyone is a terrorist by sound+vision · · Score: 1

      Hello, former opiate addict here. I wasn't using heroin in particular, but the year or so that I used opiates daily was the most economically productive period of my life. Every day I would be high by the time I came in to work, which involved maintaining Linux servers. I would get my job done without issue. Unless you get to near-overdose levels, opiates don't effect your coordination or higher level thinking to the degree of alcohol or even cannabis. Indeed the biggest negative effects were prohibition-related. The price was heavily increased price due to enforcement measures (3x to 4x increase over as many years) and I had to associate with certain shady people to get it.

      It's worth noting that the medically accepted treatments for opiate addiction, like methadone maintenance treatment, simply substitute illegal opiates for legal ones. You're still under the influence of opiates daily, but instead of going by the dope house every morning and shelling out $100 for the illegal pills, you go by the clinic and pay maybe $10 and get legal ones. And that's an improvement. These programs have been in place for decades and their positive effects are well studied.

    81. Re:Homeland Security? Everyone is a terrorist by sound+vision · · Score: 1

      It's really shocking how much money these pain clinics are making now - they are making more money than the dope dealers. People will literally start lining up at 4 am waiting for the clinic to open to make sure they get a spot. No appointments, they just process as many customers a day as they can. The customers pay in cash, something like $250 per visit. Due to the laws, lots of "mainstream" pharmacies won't process prescriptions from pain clinics, so the clinics often partner up with a specific pharmacy, where you pay another $100 for the pills themselves. Again cash, of course.

      In this area, I've never seen heroin but I've certainly seen boatloads of pills. The program to push opiate users off heroin and on to pharmaceuticals was a success.

  3. silly by HBI · · Score: 2

    I mean I know people running criminal enterprises aren't all that bright usually, but you'd think the smart play would be to avoid obvious telltales like an overlarge amount of shipments to your house.

    The right way to do this would be to open up a shell storefront and conduct a legitimate trade for its cover value, and get your shipments there. How about one of those mailbox places?

    --
    HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    1. Re:silly by Sowelu · · Score: 1

      It's Bellevue. Getting a billion packages a day is normal, though they're usually from Amazon.

    2. Re:silly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For a few months we had a local gas station with prices $0.50 - $0.80 higher that the surrounding stations, "because of delivery truck issues"...

    3. Re:silly by halivar · · Score: 1

      but you'd think the smart play would be to avoid obvious telltales like an overlarge amount of shipments to your house.

      Perhaps Amazon Prime has gotten me under FBI surveillance, then.

    4. Re:silly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but you'd think the smart play would be to avoid obvious telltales like an overlarge amount of shipments to your house.

      For a couple of years I didn't have a car. Hell, I have a car and I still dislike shopping in real life.

      I get packages like nobody's business. Clearly I'm a criminal mastermind, and not just tired of wasting an entire weekend trying and failing to find what I want, instead of spending five minutes in a web browser.

    5. Re:silly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about one of those mailbox places?

      There are probably better options than using a place that is required by the government to collect a photocopy of your picture ID with documented proof of place of residence and turn it over to the USPS personnel before providing you service, and whose street address is in a widely disseminated database of CMRAs. Remember, you're providing this address to the one entity in the entire US who has access to all known street addresses and can match that against your federally-mandated national ID card (i.e. your Real ID driver's license).

      Land of the Fr^W^W "Ihre papiere, bitte"

      I mean, if you want to be a criminal mastermind then drop the penny ante bullshit. If you have a line on a way to get false Real ID compliant documents issued then you shouldn't be using that for bush league shit like getting a CMRA box with a fake home address.

      Now, if you were to open up a legitimate online auction site in order to launder your deliveries... I suggest doing some sort of used electronics type exchange, and advertise how you certify and test all used hardware being sold on your site. Plenty of legit mail going in and out. Even better if you have a partner to run the company who doesn't know that the business is a front.

    6. Re:silly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, the smart move is to never buy or sell if you run the marketplace. Just collect the bitcoins.

    7. Re:silly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      I think it's unlikely that they caught him by monitoring his UPS deliveries. We won't hear about how they REALLY caught him, because it likely involves surveillance techniques of questionable legality.

    8. Re:silly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I mean I know people running criminal enterprises aren't all that bright usually, but you'd think the smart play would be to avoid obvious telltales like an overlarge amount of shipments to your house.

      The right way to do this would be to open up a shell storefront and conduct a legitimate trade for its cover value, and get your shipments there. How about one of those mailbox places?

      Baby steps man.

      Start with not having a fucking roommate.

    9. Re:silly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You would be correct, except the department of Homeland Security hasn't found anything suspicious in your package traffic metadata.

    10. Re:silly by blue+trane · · Score: 0

      Fuck Bellevue. Fucking decrepit old people doddering along dressed in bright yellow highway worker jackets and wearing headlamps, so afraid that the other bumbling alzheimer's patients still driving will hit them. Fuck Bellevue. Bunch of out-of-touch insulated rich fucks with silly trivial shallow problems like "oh my mexican yard worker didn't show up today, whatever will I do? My lawn needs trimming!" Fuck Bellevue High and its two black kids and parking lot full of rich kid cars. Fuck Bellevue and its gated communities within gated communities. Fuck what they did to Bridle Trails turning it into a horse park for the fucking rich fucks who're so rich they keep horses in the fucking suburbs.

    11. Re:silly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I mean I know people running criminal enterprises aren't all that bright usually, but you'd think the smart play would be to avoid obvious telltales like an overlarge amount of shipments to your house.

      This is a silly thing to say. Lots of people get deliveries every day. Law enforcement can say any circumstantial was the reason they moved in, if only to avoid exposing the pertinent mechanism that actually led to the arrest.

    12. Re:silly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry that it's not a city built around neighborhoods for 5+ kid homes... the blacks are like the middle east; you're expecting democracy to just work but their entire culture and history is counter to that.

    13. Re:silly by blue+trane · · Score: 1

      Nah man Bellevue is a miasma of rich old fucks who have nothing better to do than whine about their really really small problems and illnesses for which they are way overtreated because they have so much fucking money. Fucking Bill fucking Gates lives in Bellevue (Medina). Fuck those fucks. The Bellevue Fucking Library has security guards that go around and kick the legs of chairs, if someone's sleeping in them. Fuck that homeless-phobia.

    14. Re:silly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He wasn't proposing to rent a PMB at a CMRA. He was proposing to own the CMRA.

    15. Re:silly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Still, that doesn't work if the USPS is involved, as they refuse to deliver to any CMRA PMB addressee who is not on record with Real ID documentation.

      I do admit, though, that it might be possible to scam it as the owner of a CMRA as long as no one ever ships the contraband there via USPS. I don't know if third party carriers have access to the USPS CMRA PMB boxholder database, or if they would even bother checking.

  4. Probably cost taxpayers over $1 million by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    To get $40k in drug trafficking shut down. Way to go guys.

  5. They Deserve It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is a good thing. There are some idiots who think illegal activities done anonymously over the Internet can't be uncovered by the authorities.
    I'm glad these evildoers are being pursued and punished. That will teach these evildoers not to be commit such nefarious acts.
    I hope they lock em up and throw away the key. Good riddance.

  6. Move away from the states? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If I was going to do something of this kind I'd probably not live in our current police state. Weird why not somewhere in the Caribbean?

  7. Always presume parallel construction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The stories about how these people get caught are usually "convenient", but I'm guessing it's parallel construction derived from classified capabilities (most likely that Tor is fully penetrated by the NSA).

    Defense in depth, people.

    Yes, sometimes people get caught due to stupid oversights, such as being the only dorm room's network node on campus that is connected to Tor at the moment that the bomb threat was emailed. That's why god invented VPN gateways running on VPSs and so forth, though.

    1. Re:Always presume parallel construction by radio4fan · · Score: 1

      That's why god invented VPN gateways running on VPSs and so forth, though.

      To email bomb threats?

      He certainly does move in mysterious ways.

    2. Re:Always presume parallel construction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why god invented VPN gateways running on VPSs and so forth, though.

      To email bomb threats?

      He certainly does move in mysterious ways.

      Yes, of course. He knew he wouldn't be ready for the 7th day in time, so how else did you think he was able to "rest"?

      If you look at it the right way, deploying SWAT/EOD in order to delay taking a final is really just a form of worship...

    3. Re:Always presume parallel construction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm kinda disappointed that they fall for this bullshit, because if these people didn't set themselves up for parallel construction by having questionable stuff delivered to their houses, the Tor developers would be more likely to get clues as to where the real vulnerabilities in the software are and have a chance at hardening it.

    4. Re:Always presume parallel construction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He certainly does move in mysterious ways.

      No, he works in mysterious ways.

      She moves in mysterious ways is a song by U2.

    5. Re:Always presume parallel construction by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Re: I'm guessing it's parallel construction derived from classified capabilities
      Did feds mount a sustained attack on Tor to decloak crime suspects? (Jan 22 2015)
      http://arstechnica.com/tech-po...
      .. "protocol to carry out two classes of attack that together may have been enough to uncloak people "

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  8. These people asked for trouble and they got it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Listen, I don't like cops and in my opinion the war on drugs is utter bullshit
    as well as an obvious failure with respect to its claimed goal of ending sale and use of illegal
    drugs.

    But these Silk Road people rubbed the noses of those in power with the notion that they
    were going to sell drugs illegally and get away with it. That was just ASKING for trouble.

    Plenty of people engage in illegal stuff and never get caught, but they do it in ways
    which do not draw attention to themselves. Unless you have a desire to get caught,
    stealth has got to be part of your core philosophy. Silk Road on the other hand flaunted
    the ability to conduct illegal transactions and that brought them special attention from
    The Man. If you want to get away with stuff you don't want to tell your enemy you are
    doing the stuff you want to get away with -- doing so is like hitting a hornet's nest with
    a baseball bat. Of course the hornets come out, what the fuck did you think was going to
    happen ?

    '

    1. Re:These people asked for trouble and they got it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Regardless of your feelings about illegal drugs, Silk Road is more than just a "pharmacy". It is a market for all sorts of illegal activity, from human trafficking to guns for hire. In a society where people interact within a framework of laws, that sort of business can't be allowed. BTW, I'm in complete agreement about the war on drugs. The government doesn't do many things well (hardly anything actually), but they do most things better than the war on drugs.

      I love the concept of truly and trustworthy private communication, but also want the bad guys to get caught. I foresee that we'll eventually have great encryption, which will totally change the way law enforcement conducts investigations.

    2. Re:These people asked for trouble and they got it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Regardless of your feelings about illegal drugs, Silk Road is more than just a "pharmacy". It is a market for all sorts of illegal activity, from feds pretending to be human trafficking to feds pretending to be guns for hire.

      FTFY

    3. Re:These people asked for trouble and they got it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There is a basic problem with selling illegal things.

      If nobody knows you are selling them, you will have no customers.

      What the world needs is a bitcoin like system for tracking reputations. No, I don't know how an anon crypto reputation would work. Would someone who previously sold you illegal things certify the transaction had been carried out without going to jail? Buyers and sellers collect keys from each other. Big reputations are required to access wholesale pricing. Reputations become valuable, moving the distribution network downstream, where it belongs. Who would mediate disputes?

      How would you stop the cops from using 100 busted junkie's 'reprobate' score to destroy (via traffic analysis) the whole system? Hypothetically of course.

      Most will give up the keys to their wallets in a second, given a chance to walk out the door. These people are pretty much a bunch of fuck ups. So making it idiot proof is lowballing the spec. Idiot/cop/thief proof is required

  9. Land of the Free, indeed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    one count of conspiracy to distribute cocaine, heroin and methamphetamine [..] carries a mandatory minimum prison term of 10 years and a maximum punishment of life in prison

    America, what is wrong with you? A man accused of conspiring to distribute drugs, not accused of actually distributing any drugs at all but simply conspiring to do so, faces at minimum a decade in prison and perhaps the rest of his life in prison? What the fuck? Your murderers get much less time in prison after the government has proven that they killed someone. This man is accused merely of planning or thinking of committing a crime, and if found guilty will be locked up for no less than ten full years.

    Absolute insanity.

    1. Re:Land of the Free, indeed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nixon and Reagan's War on Drugs!

    2. Re:Land of the Free, indeed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? Blaming America. Name what country your from. I bet I can Google 100 examples of some messed up crap your government has done lately.

    3. Re:Land of the Free, indeed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Murica, fuck yeah! We're number one better than North Korea! We're number one better than North Korea!

  10. Perhaps... by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 4, Funny

    One package was found to contain 107 Xanax pills, ...

    ... the guy just has a LOT of anxiety. Wouldn't you if Homeland Security was after you? :-)

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    1. Re:Perhaps... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or he just really liked palindromes.

  11. Clearly Silk Road bothers Homeland Security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The goal is to make the public believe that anyone using silk road is a drug dealer(1st), later anyone left will be a terrorist.

    The problem of anonymity is the issue and problem is that is still difficult to figure out who is who is the homeland securities problem.

  12. bullion?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The cops (or Feds?) did you the common public relations ploy: pointing out they confiscated silver bullion, among other things. The police are always presenting a list of things confiscated, and often on the list are things that are perfectly legal to own but are presented in a provocative fashion (unless paid for by illegally gotten gains). Things like guns, porn, computers, security alarms, dogs that might bite (usually shot on site by you-know-who), silver, gold, or beef bullion, even cash. The horror!
    20 or so years ago I remember reading in the paper where some guys vintage guitar collection was being auctioned off, because it was suspected it was paid for with ill gotten gains.
    Course, now-a-days the police just steal things for their department. I wonder if Eric Holders recent policy changes in this regard will really change anything?

  13. 107 Xanex pills is what, a 3 month supply by Cafe+Alpha · · Score: 1

    for someone with a psychiatric problem? Less if they take more than one a day?

    That isn't even slightly suspicious. I had a prescription for 30 of them to take one per evening.

    1. Re:107 Xanex pills is what, a 3 month supply by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most people don't buy it from some stranger on the internet though.

  14. Fuck "Society's Cost" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We live (or in principle do) in a democratic republic where our government's purpose is to PROTECT our RIGHTS. Some fool judge way back reasoned that a farmer growing his own grain and using it himself affects interstate commerce, and thus can be regulated. This is an insane ruling and is the reason the federal government can regulate just about anything.

  15. I lost productivity arguing this silly point by TiggertheMad · · Score: 1

    Currently the US estimates that it spends $5 Billion on health care costs associated with heroin use. In addition it is estimated that heroin costs about $11 billion in lost productivity.

    If all those drug users were not doing drugs, it doesn't mean that they would automatically be leading healthy, happy lives. However, I'll take that number at face value for the sake of argument.

    So we have a number that represents the cost to society. Now prove to me that it would cost society that same amount or more if it was completely legal and unregulated. I am willing to give you odds that the cost of enforcement, legal expenses, incarceration, and health care cost for will always exceed the legal costs. The lost productivity will probably be equal either way, health care costs will be slightly less, since it will be easier to get pure, consistent quantities, and then there is all the other costs that make it way more expensive to regulate.

    Then there are the moral costs of propping up narco governments and essentially providing price supports for organized crime. Cheaper, Ha! Lost productivity my ass....

    --

    HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!