Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Dark Net's Top Selling Drug Dealer Is Making $1.5 Million This Year

Posted by Soulskill on from the but-do-they-401k-match dept.

Patrick O'Neill writes: Behind a wall of anonymity, an American business is selling $1.5 million in medical marijuana products on the Dark Net this year, according to an analysis of publicly available market records. Occupying the top selling spot on the biggest black market around, Medibuds, as the business brands itself, is the biggest business on the Dark Net. The operation ships dozens of deals a day and has endured for three years, outlasting hundreds of markets and competitors.

81 of 132 comments (clear)

  1. Just because you can... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You know, if you're a supporter of the darknet and the drug marketplace contained within, please stop publishing this shit. Yes, the marijuana laws need to be reformed. Yes, it's only weed. But it's still a crime in most of the world and now with this kind of exposure, you've just put a gigantic red X on some poor bastard's back. DPR thought he could taunt the feds, they got him. I'm sure Medibuds doesn't need the exposure.

    1. Re:Just because you can... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm pretty sure you put a big red X on your own back by running the most successful operation to date.

      These guys seem to know how to handle their shit, no advice needed. After all, they're still in business, right? Which means they're either Really Good or Really Law Enforcement.

    2. Re:Just because you can... by KGIII · · Score: 2

      What is amusing is that you all seem to believe that this is the most successful operation to date. There may well be bigger that operate on a variety of sites in the dark web. They are just not likely to come out and give this information away.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    3. Re:Just because you can... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      How do they get around the government ordering some and seeing who mails it?

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    4. Re:Just because you can... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      How do they get around the government ordering some and seeing who mails it?

      IF it's just an ounce, you can drop it in a drop box. If it's more than an ounce, you can lie on the return address.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    5. Re:Just because you can... by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      I'm pretty sure they'll be ok as long as they pay their taxes.

      Illegal, shmelligal, what matters is whether the bribe is right.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    6. Re:Just because you can... by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      After all, they're still in business, right?

      Yeah, right up until they day they're not. Unfortunately in this business the usual exit is not retirement, it's prison.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    7. Re:Just because you can... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Actually you can drop up to 13 ounce package in a dropbox with just generic stamps for 1st class delivery.

    8. Re:Just because you can... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure they'll be ok as long as they pay their taxes.

      But do you pay your taxes and incriminate yourself, or lie about how you made the money and commit tax fraud?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    9. Re:Just because you can... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      It may be legal where they are.

      One of the huge reasons I'm for legalizing the shit: It's an awesome source of tax money.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    10. Re:Just because you can... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      It may be legal where they are.

      There is nowhere in the USA where it is legal at the federal level. They occasionally make some noises about changing that, but they have not done so. It is a federal crime to engage in any kind of marijuana-related activity anywhere within the borders of the U.S. or protectorates unless you are one of a handful of federally-recognized patients or researchers.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    11. Re:Just because you can... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      As if I needed a reminder to avoid that country like the plague...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    12. Re:Just because you can... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      The only laws we obey are those of God

      So if you're an atheist, you can just do whatever you want then?

      Handy way of avoiding any responsibility whatsoever.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    13. Re:Just because you can... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I prefer the atheist version.

      I obey the laws of nature. Mostly 'cause everyone trying to defy, e.g., the laws of gravity paid for it dearly. And it didn't even take no police, judge, jury or executioner to make sure he does.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  2. Revenue or profit ? by x0ra · · Score: 2

    The article is rather vague, but a business making $1.5millions in revenue, especially in the grey-drug market, should not be bringing much profit...

    1. Re:Revenue or profit ? by HideyoshiJP · · Score: 2

      Either way, it still doesn't sound like that much for something billed as being "the biggest."

    2. Re: Revenue or profit ? by x0ra · · Score: 1

      Given the amount of taxes and control on legal bud, I don't think there is anything which could be called "very cheap".

    3. Re: Revenue or profit ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Let m know when they offer service to match my dealer.

      7 days a week, 11 AM to 10 PM (or later, sometimes). Always replies, always lets you know ahead of time if he'll be on vacation. The price is right in line with low-end market price, and the product is upper mid grade. As professional and convenient as they could possibly be.

      And yes, some dealers even deliver.

    4. Re: Revenue or profit ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And yes, some dealers even deliver.

      But does he run Linux?

    5. Re: Revenue or profit ? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      You know something's wrong with a country's economy when the black market gives you better service and conditions than the legal one...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    6. Re:Revenue or profit ? by dj245 · · Score: 1

      The article is rather vague, but a business making $1.5millions in revenue, especially in the grey-drug market, should not be bringing much profit...

      If its all marijuana, and revenue, that's about 130kg of weed using a weed price of $11.5/gram (Priceofweed.com, Texas, High Quality, based on 9568 samples). Thats a lot of weed shipments- roughly 175 grams per business day.

      --
      Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
    7. Re:Revenue or profit ? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Either way, it still doesn't sound like that much for something billed as being "the biggest."

      Indeed. The market for dope in America is estimated to be as high as $120B. So this guy has 0.0001%. I'm not impressed.

    8. Re: Revenue or profit ? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Let m know when they offer service to match my dealer.

      7 days a week, 11 AM to 10 PM (or later, sometimes). Always replies, always lets you know ahead of time if he'll be on vacation. The price is right in line with low-end market price, and the product is upper mid grade. As professional and convenient as they could possibly be.

      And yes, some dealers even deliver.

      It's the old dope peddler/Doing well by doing good.

      Tom Lehrer.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  3. Marijuana should be legalized by FudRucker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    in all 50 states, and federally, and for recreational use too. like alcohol = anyone over 18 or 21 can buy it, take it home and smoke it or eat it in the privacy of their own home, but NO DRIVING while stoned, no smoking in public places, legal to grow 6 plants to maturity regardless of size of weight,

    the US Govt needs to admit the war on marijuana is impractical and oppressive to far too many people that are otherwise law abiding and peaceful people

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
    1. Re:Marijuana should be legalized by Noah+Haders · · Score: 4, Interesting

      why? cuz smoking is gross and nasty and smelly. I want to actually enjoy the food that I'm paying for, not to have everything taste like an ashtray. The same goes for both tobacco and MJ.

      We're in an era of rebirth, where we have finally liberated our noses and taste buds from 300 years of oppression of somebody crumpling up a plant leaf and smoking it over your dinner plate.

      remember when they used to allow smoking on planes? I do? they did it on international flights. The last few rows were "smoking rows", and they even put up a handy plaque to denote the dividing line.

    2. Re:Marijuana should be legalized by rickyslashdot · · Score: 1

      Consider the fact that the DEA, Washington congress-critters (alien by nature), and the 'self-righteous' and affiliates have killed, crimilalized, marginalized, and jailed MORE PEOPLE than all of mankinds war losses put together. Decriminalize, regulate (ie. alcohol), and allow personal choice - - - this single process would more than double the available budget for the US to provide USEFUL support for the taxpayers. Bottom line: This SINGLE issue would allow granny to safely cash her SS chack without facing a gang of 'users' waiting to rip off the helpless for another fix.

      --
      redneck geek
    3. Re:Marijuana should be legalized by jdavidb · · Score: 1

      Exercising one's rights to life, liberty, and property should be legalized. In all 50 states and all other jurisdictions.

      --
      Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
    4. Re:Marijuana should be legalized by jdavidb · · Score: 1

      legal to grow 6 plants

      It's immoral to stop me from growing a seventh.

      no smoking in public places

      If I own a restaurant or other property and I want to let people smoke there, it's wrong for you to stop me.

      --
      Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
    5. Re:Marijuana should be legalized by jdavidb · · Score: 1

      why? cuz smoking is gross and nasty and smelly. I want to actually enjoy the food that I'm paying for, not to have everything taste like an ashtray. The same goes for both tobacco and MJ.

      I agree with you that it's nasty and smelly and I avoid it like the plague. But I don't have the right to tell some guy what behaviors he can't allow in his place. If people want to get together and eat and smoke, then the right thing for me to do is to simply not go there.

      --
      Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
    6. Re:Marijuana should be legalized by jdavidb · · Score: 1

      But I don't have the right to tell some guy what behaviors he can't allow in his place.

      if the smoke comes into my place, then i do have the right

      Well, yes, but that's not what we're talking about.

      --
      Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
    7. Re:Marijuana should be legalized by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      Well, let's be honest, they'd need to admit that it isn't a narcotic according to any meaningful definition of the word.

      The politicians who are fiercely against it will never be honest about it, will never allow testing of it, and will always overhype it and "teh evil killer narcotic".

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    8. Re:Marijuana should be legalized by Prune · · Score: 1

      I'm with you if (1) you increase the threshold age to around 24, because, while cannabis' safety record is pretty good in adults, it does have significant negative developmental effects — and the prefrontal cortex of humans doesn't complete development until around the early 20s (for the same reason, I believe the voting age ought to be raised); and, (2) you likewise legalize psychedelic drugs (psylocybin/mushrooms, mescaline, DMT, LSD) as, unlike most other psychoactive drugs, they're non-addictive and have no dangerous side-effects in healthy individuals.

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
    9. Re:Marijuana should be legalized by Shados · · Score: 1

      Of course, in places that DONT want it, restaurants, apartment buildings, condo associations....people will STILL do it. People smoke leaning on no-smoking signs all the time.

      This is why these things never work. It would be so beautiful, if it was as simple as "I own this establishment, people can do whatever within my set of rules, as long as it doesn't affect people outside". But people never, ever follow those rules (in either direction), and its very hard to do things that stay within your place (MJ smoke reaches fucking far and leaks through everything).

      Thus why its so damn much more complicated. People for it will often do it ANYWHERE, accepted or not, private or public... people against it will be affected no matter where they go. Everyone's losing no matter what.

      ie: I live in a condo community (a couple of buildings) on a private street (as in, a fairly long stretch of road that we have to pay to maintain, the city doesn't touch it). Hundreds of people a day go through it even though its a private area, no amount of signs or barriers stop anyone, the city/cops won't do shit about it. And because I'm in an extremely liberal area, a huge percentage of the trespasser are smoking weed as they do. And since the smell has such an insane range, the whole area constantly smell like pot.

      NOT FUN.

    10. Re:Marijuana should be legalized by PPH · · Score: 1

      When was the last time you heard about someone stoned killing someone with a car?

      Two days ago

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    11. Re:Marijuana should be legalized by digitalPhant0m · · Score: 1

      As someone who used to be opposed to legalization, I have to agree with you.

      After many decades in the "war" on drugs, it seems that the "war" itself has done far more harm than good.
      How many people have died on both sides of this supposed war? For what?
      Victimless crimes like consuming marijuana?
      For abusing one's own body?
      Nearly all responsible drug use is a victim-less crime.

      Live's are being ruined, real people are dying and violent crime is proliferated as a direct result of trying to enforce an ethical code.

      It took me many years do counter all the programming by religion, public services ads and public schools to finally realize there is no logical reason for the prohibition.

      I hope the lives of innocent people (on both sides of the argument) are worth your moral code.
      Good luck with your war.

    12. Re:Marijuana should be legalized by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      And even if you don't agree that it should be legal for recreational use, it's blatantly fucking obvious that it does in fact have legitimate medical uses, meaning its current status as a DEA Schedule I drug simply factually and scientifically wrong.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    13. Re:Marijuana should be legalized by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Why 6? That's ridiculous. Grow as you like, sell what you don't need (to adults), why limit the market? That's so un-American, you commie!

      I'm not so sure that we should stop at MJ, though. Let's face it, people who want drugs will get them. One way or another. And I'd prefer them to get clean, good stuff at affordable prices (and taxed!) to the current situation where you have to watch out where you go 'cause the money in your wallet is what he needs for his next fix.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    14. Re:Marijuana should be legalized by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but no. People are definitely not able to operate machinery after using what is essentially a very powerful tranquilizer. They're not drunk, but being "stoned" sure isn't advantageous for your attention.

      I'm all for legal use of whatever substance you want to subject your body to, but the line is drawn where it affects others directly.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    15. Re:Marijuana should be legalized by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I'm not so certain I can agree with the 24 age limit, because then a lot of other things (voting, sex, military service...) would logically have to be adjusted as well. And no latter than the last one you'll find that the government will decidedly not agree.

      This said, I'd add even more to the fold. But I would try to enforce some kind of education program. Not the scare attempts we have today that nobody can take serious and that have usually the opposite effect ("they lied about MJ, guess they also lie about croc") but actual, sensible recommendations on safe drug use. Like, say, having a tripsitter with psychedelics. Or making sure you drink enough when you're running on amp.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    16. Re:Marijuana should be legalized by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      why? cuz smoking is gross and nasty and smelly. I want to actually enjoy the food that I'm paying for, not to have everything taste like an ashtray. The same goes for both tobacco and MJ.

      But I don't have the right to tell some guy what behaviors he can't allow in his place.

      it depends. places of public accomodation have significantly curtailed private property rights. think ADA requirements or nondiscrimination requirements. Also places that require licenses (like restaurants) open themselves up to restrictions that would not otherwise be imposed on private property.

      so yes, in many cases, "we" (society) have the right to tell some guy what behaviors he can't allow in his place.

    17. Re:Marijuana should be legalized by dj245 · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but no. People are definitely not able to operate machinery after using what is essentially a very powerful tranquilizer. They're not drunk, but being "stoned" sure isn't advantageous for your attention.

      I'm all for legal use of whatever substance you want to subject your body to, but the line is drawn where it affects others directly.

      Weed is not a tranquilizer. I don't think you've ever tried it. I am more careful when driving stoned than when I drive clearheaded. The larger the dose, the more paranoid I get that something bad is going to happen if I don't dedicate 100% of my attention to the act. High drivers drive slower and are more relaxed (and possibly paranoid of rearending someone) so they don't generally tailgate. This is such a common reaction that it is a stereotype.

      --
      Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
    18. Re:Marijuana should be legalized by Ken+McE · · Score: 1

      "Hundreds of people a day go through it even though its a private area, no amount of signs or barriers stop anyone, the city/cops won't do shit about it."

      You can fix that. Put up a fixed physical barrier at one end of the street (jersey barriers have a certain authority) and a "no outlet" sign at the other. Only people with business will drive there.

    19. Re:Marijuana should be legalized by khallow · · Score: 1

      Consider the fact that the DEA, Washington congress-critters (alien by nature), and the 'self-righteous' and affiliates have killed, crimilalized, marginalized, and jailed MORE PEOPLE than all of mankinds war losses put together./quote> No, they haven't. It's a matter of running the numbers. For example, the Second World War killed around 70 million directly. Then add on Mongolian invasions and the Taiping Rebellion, you're talking about around half the current US population.

    20. Re:Marijuana should be legalized by evilrip · · Score: 1

      I'll bite; The ignorance in this one. Seriously, one can consume marijuana in a variety of ways. IMHO smoking is one of the poorest ways to consume it. Some prefer edibles, some prefer vaporization, some even drink it it, hell you can turn THC(and the other stuff) into an acetate (you know like some certain painkillers' active ingredient form) and absorb through the skin. I think most people will agree that smoking is less than ideal, and smoking anything is most likely harmful to you. I was a smoker of cigarettes for ..a long time, once i rid myself of that *shit*, there was little to no appeal in smoking cannabis anymore, but to me consumption has many positive upsides so i found a better consumption. Just because people smoke something it doesn't mean that is the only method of administration. Frankly, the vaporizer smells less(almost nothing), tastes better and yields a much cleaner high - and my airways, lungs and so forth clearly feels different. You know could ban smoking the plant in public without banning the plant or it's use. I remember smoking on airplanes: I was a child, and even then I understood how bat shit crazy that was.

      --
      "To err is human, to forgive, beyond the scope of the Operating System"
    21. Re:Marijuana should be legalized by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      but NO DRIVING while stoned

      Tobacco smoking affects driving ability to a level similar to mobile phone use, but the evidence does not say the same about marijuana. (It's based on court convictions, which, guess what — are easier to get if someone has marijuana in their bloodstream, even though that doesn't mean anything, scientifically!)

      Until and unless we ban smoking tobacco (which makes people more aggressive) while/before driving, criminalizing driving while/after smoking marijuana (which tends to do the opposite) is ever so much complete bullshit, and exists for absolutely no reason but revenue generation. Nictotine improves reaction times, but it also increases aggressiveness and what we need is safer, more responsible driving.

      the US Govt needs to admit the war on marijuana is impractical and oppressive

      And yet you support laws which are impractical and oppressive, only slightly less so, and then want a medal. Congratulations, the moderators gave you one. But it's plastic.

      Incidentally, alcohol is regulated a lot more than you think it is. Not just anyone is allowed to produce it, or even own the equipment to produce it — in that respect, it is actually more restricted than marijuana! Having made it, you're not allowed to sell it, and you're only allowed to produce a small amount. All that is reasonable on some levels, because alcohol is flammable (only distillation equipment is controlled in any way, although you're only allowed to produce a certain amount of beer or wine per year as well) and a toxin. Marijuana is less flammable than things you're allowed to own any amount of, like polyester yarn or fluffy bunny fur, and so far nobody has been able to show any serious health drawbacks even with combustion and inhalation of large quantities of the stuff. So what's your basis for limiting production to six plants, et cetera?

      You're just a tinier fascist.

      Let's go after people for their driving behavior, not their brain chemistry, because people make their own brain chemistry and it's totally possible for you to be more unsafe to drive than if you had ingested a foreign substance without even doing so. Are we going to implant monitors in everyone's bloodstream that let them know when it's okay to drive? Or are we just going to keep making cars and roads safer and eventually phase out non-self-driving vehicles from public roads, and maybe even do away with those idiotic strips of tarmac altogether? Because I think it's stupid that we're still paying for these when there are superior alternatives, and having this debate is basically fucking retarded when we should be debating superior transportation technologies that make the argument moot. Then the officials of the race tracks can decide what chemicals you're allowed to have in your blood stream while you operate an automobile.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    22. Re:Marijuana should be legalized by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      If people want to get together and eat and smoke, then the right thing for me to do is to simply not go there.

      The reason we don't have that is that you need to have a job to live, so you could be forced into taking a job which is killing you just so that you can live, which is a form of slavery by any reasonable measure. The solution is arguably MGI/COLA. Then you can have your smoking restaurant, and nobody has to be forced to work in that environment. If you can't find employees because they would all rather make their money* working for someone who isn't you, perhaps you will make your establishment non-smoking. But right now, it's important for workers to have rights, because some people are already forced to work well beyond need so that some other people can buy their second or third yacht.

      * People will still want money, so they can live above the baseline

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    23. Re:Marijuana should be legalized by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      When was the last time you heard about someone stoned killing someone with a car?

      Two days ago

      The linked article says "high on drugs", it doesn't say what he was high on. Could be weed, could be horse tranquilizers, could be Xanax(tm)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    24. Re:Marijuana should be legalized by khallow · · Score: 1

      I DID NOT limit my numbers to the US population - the numbers refers to the TOTAL losses to the civilian 'useful' population as a DIRECT RESULT and from DIRECTED / $$_FORCED_$$ enaction of the drug war policies promulgated by our 'leaders' in the US legislature !

      It's not going to add much more to the list.

    25. Re:Marijuana should be legalized by chihowa · · Score: 1

      The DEA's MO on all drugs, beyond just marijuana, consists entirely of overhype. Have you ever looked at the schedules? Schedule I, which consists almost entirely of psychedelic drugs is described as such (hilarious emphasis added):

      Schedule I drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. Schedule I drugs are the most dangerous drugs of all the drug schedules with potentially severe psychological or physical dependence. Some examples of Schedule I drugs are:

      heroin, lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), marijuana (cannabis), 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (ecstasy), methaqualone, and peyote

      Of course, Schedule II drugs are by far the most abused drugs, including things like prescription opiates, methamphetamine, cocaine, ritalin, etc. But Schedule II is described as having "less abuse potential than Schedule I drugs". It's BS all the way down.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    26. Re: Marijuana should be legalized by weilawei · · Score: 1

      Maybe you ought to check out the CDC. They provide citations, which surely an intelligent person, such as yourself, can follow. Why name one person when there's multiple thousands?

      Health Effects in Adults

      In adults who have never smoked, secondhand smoke can cause:

              Heart disease
                      For nonsmokers, breathing secondhand smoke has immediate harmful effects on the heart and blood vessels.1,3
                      It is estimated that secondhand smoke caused nearly 34,000 heart disease deaths each year during 2005–2009 among adult nonsmokers in the United States.1
              Lung cancer1,6
                      Secondhand smoke exposure caused more than 7,300 lung cancer deaths each year during 2005–2009 among adult nonsmokers in the United States.1
              Stroke1

      Smokefree laws can reduce the risk for heart disease and lung cancer among nonsmokers.1

      Secondhand Smoke Exposure Has Decreased in Recent Years

              Measurements of cotinine show that exposure to secondhand smoke has steadily decreased in the United States over time.
                      During 1988–1991, almost 90 of every 100 (87.9%) nonsmokers had measurable levels of cotinine. 6
                      During 2007–2008, about 40 of every 100 (40.1%) nonsmokers had measurable levels of cotinine.6
                      During 2011–2012, about 25 of every 100 (25.3%) nonsmokers had measurable levels of cotinine.7

              The decrease in exposure to secondhand smoke is likely due to:7
                      The growing number of states and communities with laws that do not allow smoking in indoor areas of workplaces and public places, including restaurants, bars, and casinos
                      The growing number of households with voluntary smokefree home rules
                      Significant declines in cigarette smoking rates
                      The fact that smoking around nonsmokers has become much less socially acceptable

      Many People in the United States Are Still Exposed to Secondhand Smoke

              During 2011–2012, about 58 million nonsmokers in the United States were exposed to secondhand smoke.7
              Among children who live in homes in which no one smokes indoors, those who live in multiunit housing (for example, apartments or condos) have 45% higher cotinine levels (or almost half the amount) than children who live in single-family homes.8
              During 2011–2012, two out of every five children ages 3 to 11—including seven out of every ten Black children—in the United States were exposed to secondhand smoke regularly.7
              During 2011–2012, more than one in three (36.8%) nonsmokers who lived in rental housing were exposed to secondhand smoke.7

    27. Re:Marijuana should be legalized by PPH · · Score: 1

      The linked article says "high on drugs"

      Some other local news outlets stated that the driver admitted to smoking pot. The police are awaiting some test results to see if there may have been something else in addition.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    28. Re:Marijuana should be legalized by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      The problem here is that you may just think that you're driving more carefully, like drunk drivers thinking they're actually better drivers than they are. It would be interesting to test this. Sadly I could not find any at least halfway unbiased sources (most were from obvious anti-drug groups that I somehow can't really use as an objective source).

      What seems to actually be a fact is that driving stoned is less likely to lead to a dangerous accident than driving drunk. Which makes sense (since, as you said, MJ makes you paranoid while alcohol makes you overconfident).

      It would be interesting to do an unbiased study of the topic.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    29. Re:Marijuana should be legalized by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      sure man, i can get on board with this. ban the smoking in public. my motto, if something is smoking, call the fire department or douse it with water.

    30. Re:Marijuana should be legalized by onepoint · · Score: 1

      Hi maybe a solution to your "private street":
      A) confirm that it's yours, does the association have title to the land ???
      B) upon confirmation, file for permits that you can place gates. ( you know that if an accident happens, your association get's a lawsuit )
      C) place the gates up

      Problem almost solved :

      D) get ready for lawsuits because of gates
      E) settle with the town for service under contract, non performance of contract, gates back up again

      Almost done :

      F) Audit the services under the contract
      E) wait till they fail
      G) then upon failure apply to be a toll road.

      --
      if you see me, smile and say hello.
    31. Re:Marijuana should be legalized by jdavidb · · Score: 1

      But people never, ever follow those rules

      You're right. There oughtta be a law.

      --
      Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
    32. Re:Marijuana should be legalized by sudon't · · Score: 1

      Well, now that we have the right not to smell things we don't like, please stop driving your car in public. I hate that smell. And, please, refrain from using perfumed products like soap, detergent, dryer sheets, deodorant, and especially, perfume and cologne if you plan on being in a public place. Scented dryer sheets should be banned altogether, because I can smell the dryer exhaust from two houses away. Use unscented products, because I sure as hell don't want to smell your body odor, either. Also, we have the right to not see things we don't like, and your activities offend me and my children.
      Now, I believe I am owed another trophy!

      --
      -- sudon't

      Air-ride Equipped

    33. Re:Marijuana should be legalized by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      The DEA is completely full of shit.

      Marijuana is Schedule I drug - as you point out 'the most dangerous' kind.

      Marinol, the concentrated form of the major active ingredient in marijuana is a Schedule III drug (drugs that have "lesser" of a chance of damage and destruction to the poor sap sucking them in).

      They're a completely hopeless case these days. The only thing they are interested in is furthering their own agenda. And budget.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    34. Re:Marijuana should be legalized by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      While Prune may be correct, I agree that society isn't willing to protect adolescents in that fashion. Basically, once you're 18, your outta here. That said, prohibition hasn't helped, won't ever help. Education won't get everybody - there are always lots of humans at whatever age that are pretty self destructive. But as far as balancing individual rights verses social norms and contracts, it is a much more productive approach.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    35. Re:Marijuana should be legalized by onepoint · · Score: 1

      Good summary. with that said, both booze and pot should not be consumed if you are going to drive. just a flat restriction. easier solution.
      with the future advent of driver-less cars, I expect the bars to be packed, and happy high people to make it home safe.

      --
      if you see me, smile and say hello.
    36. Re:Marijuana should be legalized by Dashiva+Dan · · Score: 1

      Here's a starting point for you:
      http://norml.org/library/item/marijuana-and-driving-a-review-of-the-scientific-evidence

      --
      "lt;dr" is the correct response to most of my posts.
    37. Re:Marijuana should be legalized by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      When smoking was allowed on international flights, the ventilation/air circulation actually worked properly.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    38. Re:Marijuana should be legalized by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      And that's exactly what's wrong with us. Until 18, we keep our kids under a protective cheese dome. We "protect" them from reality, from experiencing harm, from damage. Don't get me wrong, it's very understandable, commendable and certainly something I can support to ensure kids don't come into life threatening harm. Whether we should protect them from skinning their knees and twisting their ankles is something I would at least consider debatable. Kids should learn that being an idiot hurts. But we can't even let them "feel bad" anymore, with ridiculous "competitions" that ensure everyone's a winner and nobody's feeling get hurt by being shown that they're not as great as their helicopter parents think they are.

      And then those people turn 18 and these training wheels come off. Not only that, but we toss them out in the cold reality they are by NO means at all prepared for. The world is not childproof. There ain't "everyone a winner" in the work place. And you're not a special snowflake for your boss.

      Am I really the only one who thinks that this is a problem?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  4. $1.5M is the biggest? by turkeydance · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Dark Net's not doing too well.

    1. Re:$1.5M is the biggest? by dissy · · Score: 1

      $1.5M is the biggest?
      Dark Net's not doing too well.

      That's more than I made last year at my legal job*. Or any given year for that matter.
      Hell that's like 20 years combined at my current pay :/

      Sure you can argue that I just suck at making money, but none the less it sounds to me like this seller is doing quite well, IMHO.

      * By legal job I mean a job that isn't illegal like selling pot in the US is, not that I work at a law firm or something :P
      Not that I think that should be illegal either but alas it is.

    2. Re:$1.5M is the biggest? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Do you think they pay taxes?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    3. Re:$1.5M is the biggest? by PPH · · Score: 1

      Do you think they pay taxes?

      Property taxes, utility taxes,sales taxes on supplies. Yes, I'm sure they do.

      Oh, you meant taxes on their profits? If you run a business and can't figure out how to make your income tax zero out, you need to fire your accountant.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    4. Re:$1.5M is the biggest? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Indeed, I'm aware of local people who came close to that , and they were real small time operators in the physical world, and i don't mix with dalers,just that I'm aware of them tbh.

    5. Re:$1.5M is the biggest? by Dashiva+Dan · · Score: 1

      This is my favourite post this thread. I award you 1 internet.
      (outta mod points atm)

      --
      "lt;dr" is the correct response to most of my posts.
  5. Re:smart contracts vs escrow accounts by neminem · · Score: 1

    More than that, what I can't imagine people trusting is that there aren't feds on that site happy for the free busts. I know the *money* is supposedly untraceable, but even if that's true, a physical product is being sold, and the seller knows exactly where it's being delivered to. That just seems like a recipe for possible disaster. I know there are reviews, but... reviews can be faked, or names can be taken over. I'd have to be pretty desperate for illegal substances to trust a system like that. No thanks.

  6. Re:smart contracts vs escrow accounts by nbauman · · Score: 1

    I was reading about the Silk Road trial the other day and I was sort of amazed that people would trust sites like this. What is stopping them from running away with all the money stashed in the escrow accounts? Wasn't one of the benefits of bitcoin supposed to be smart contracts? Why aren't smart contracts replacing escrow accounts on these sites?

    In spite of everything I still believe that people are really good at heart.

  7. Re:smart contracts vs escrow accounts by weilawei · · Score: 2

    I know the *money* is supposedly untraceable

    Would people stop saying this? It's not a feature baked into BitCoin. I'll repeat myself: BitCoin is not inherently anonymous.

    Actual anonymity with a digital currency requires you to avoid spending it anywhere it could ever be linked to your physical person in any possible manner. You also need to acquire it with the same caveats.

  8. Re:smart contracts vs escrow accounts by weilawei · · Score: 2

    What is stopping them from running away with all the money stashed in the escrow accounts?

    Perhaps, in large part, because repeat customers are better business than people you just scammed?

  9. Re:smart contracts vs escrow accounts by weilawei · · Score: 1

    Sorry, meant to reply to OP, not nbauman.

  10. Re:1.5 Mil aint squat by istartedi · · Score: 1

    You don't even have to be all hush-hush about it. Stuff is all over the news. They busted one lousy warehouse in the Bay Area a few days ago. Estimated value: $15 million. Even if that figure is inflated, it's one grow-op in a warehouse that got careless and/or greedy and didn't hide the smell properly, and didn't have a plausible explanation for their electrical usage. There have to be a bazillion that don't get caught.

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  11. Re:smart contracts vs escrow accounts by stridebird · · Score: 1

    Truth well spoken my friend.

  12. Bottes Timberland Femme Nike TN 2015 by zhenlijin · · Score: 1

    nike tn 2015 to acquire title brand Nike footwear, a few had been from the unlawful violation publicity. (Present day Express six.13) from the textile and sources in this post, make sure you direct users directly in the browser, enter the Textile Resource watch. As extended as the motivation of the "measures" to even consider about peace of thoughts, "worry" will not be redundant.Low cost nike shox the legality of the ban was "the initiative can only be regarded, not as a necessary bar." Diving group, a collective agreement with a direct promoting corporation staff to discover the applicable info claimed. Because only a published proposal, and it appears to be challenging and quickly guidelines, no legal influence. Initiative, the force of law it? China University of Political Science, Civil and Financial Law School Professor Mei Shenshi, composed proposal can only serve to strengthen the role of moral self-discipline and restraint, if no response to the initiative's signature, then do not have the suitable legal influence. Could issue written proposal of the Beijing Organizing Committee for this marketplace growth air max 90 , mentioned Chen Feng, Deputy Minister.

  13. Re:1.5 Mil aint squat by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    Obama has a fantastic opportunity to make it happen but sadly he seems to think it would define his presidency,

    Sadly, he seems to think that would be a bad idea. Literally the only downside is the flood of "negro marijuana HAR HAR HAR" bullshit you would see for eternity. The up side is that it would be about the only really positive thing he did during his entire tenure. It's got to be full legalization though, no medical bullshit, and we know that ain't going to happen overnight. It would be an awesome outgoing fuck you to the government, but that's also not going to happen, even though there is a tradition of those. Even the Bush administration left a fuck you to the GOP... they admitted that climate change was real on their way out the door. Although, more cynicism will see that as part of the script, just a way to look like less of a devil after abusing the principle all along.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  14. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  15. Re:smart contracts vs escrow accounts by tehcyder · · Score: 1

    In spite of everything I still believe that people are really good at heart.

    Regardless of whether you agree with drugs being criminalized, the fact remains that they are, and so anyone you're involved with who's making money out of illegal drugs is a criminal. Criminals are not good at heart, however much people here like to romanticise drug dealers as Robin Hood characters.

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  16. Same thing they did before such wall by WOOFYGOOFY · · Score: 1

    If only there weren't that damned anonymity then these drug dealers couldn't hide !

    Really?

    Let me refer you to nation of Mexico, post-NAFTA pre internet. An all-but-failed-state where entire swaths of the cnoutry aren't even under the control of the central government but are in effect narco-states.

    Nothing to do with anonymity, everyone knows who they are, and everything to do with the larger but more boring issue of a globally equitable distribution of opportunity, decent wages and working conditions- all things we now know NAFTA blew all to hell .

    Economic justice is the foundational justice upon which all others are built. This is exactly what King John had to sign the Magna Carta- because the lords and thanes were sick of living with no hope for lasting economic justice- property rights, a right to accumulate to yourself a measure of economic security that can't be just confiscated by the King,.

    Ditto FDRs four basic rights-
    1 right to freedom of thought and speech,
    2 right to freedom of religion,
    3 right to freedom from fear
    4. freedom from want- economic security.

    Human physiology is what breeds drug addiction- that is demand from drugs. it's just a chink in the evolutionary armour which otherwise protects us against Stuff That Will Kill Us,

    But economic injustice is what breeds narco states.

    And encryption breeds neither of those things.

  17. Re:smart contracts vs escrow accounts by nbauman · · Score: 1

    In spite of everything I still believe that people are really good at heart.

    Regardless of whether you agree with drugs being criminalized, the fact remains that they are, and so anyone you're involved with who's making money out of illegal drugs is a criminal. Criminals are not good at heart, however much people here like to romanticise drug dealers as Robin Hood characters.

    Tobacco kills 400,000 Americans every year. Illegal drugs kill less than 40,000. Cannabis kills virtually no one.

    Do you think it's acceptable to sell tobacco (that kills 400,000 people) but not illegal drugs (that kill 40,000 people)? Or the illegal drug cannabis, which kills no one?

    I prefer the criminals who sell cannabis to the legal killers who sell tobacco.