FBI Shuts Down Silk Road 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
xJ321x said:
Yes, I do. As long as people are 21 and older, they should be able to do anything they want as long as they're not hurting other people in the process. You can die for your country at 18 but can't experiment with most drugs, ever, and people like you are all "woohoo...save the children" (which aren't even the debate). /s

You're letting the largest government in the known world that is hell bent on power dictate way too much of 'the peoples' lives. Now they're trying to limit what you can and can't see on the internet, too. Slow and fast lanes, too. You know, limit everyone to catch a few bad guys. I bet you eat that shit up, too.

Save the planet, save the whales, save the snails....look...terrorists!
Click to expand...

What just happened here? I never mentioned saving the children, you did. Also, "you people"? Ok. I'm gonna assume you are pretty young, maybe even younger than me, and don't have/want kids. You would have a different view if someone in your family or one of your children ever got hooked on a drug like Cocaine.

I do love how you keep putting words in my mouth and putting me into some kind of group of people. I don't think the government does everything right, but I also don't question everything and anything the government does.
 
In no way do I mean to help people who set up these websites etc, but by god, you know the golden rule to any espionage. Trust no one, you let your guard down they catch you.
 
I've done almost all of that in the past, minus the heroin. Caffeine has far worse chemical dependency than cocaine. Sure I want the cocaine more, but caffeine reminds me when its been too long (migraines and shakes). Legalization is a mixed bag, but with a clean supply (stuff that doesn't get cut with garbage) and EDUCATION, people might actually be better off without the cartels and gangs that control citys because of this stuff. Tax money intake is a plus, and less people rotting in jail for non violent crimes. (you were in a bad spot in life and wanted to get high...jail is totally going to fix you!)...sure you'll get some addicts, but I'd be willing to bet those people are already hooked on something self destructive by now, so why criminalize something because 1% can't control themselves.
 
xIronCrossx said:
What just happened here? I never mentioned saving the children, you did. Also, "you people"? Ok. I'm gonna assume you are pretty young, maybe even younger than me, and don't have/want kids. You would have a different view if someone in your family or one of your children ever got hooked on a drug like Cocaine.

I do love how you keep putting words in my mouth and putting me into some kind of group of people. I don't think the government does everything right, but I also don't question everything and anything the government does.
Click to expand...

I agree with you. Drug use (especially in a criminalized state) should negate government benefits. If they fail they cant apply, if they fail while on...give 'em one strike. Clean up or we're taking your kids and benefits. (might wanna cover the cost of rehab as that'd be cheaper than taking care of kids in state custody). I'm all for helping people get to a better place in life, but that's only if they really want to try.
 
A lot of the drugs sold on Silk Road were steroids. Personally, I see no reason to make them illegal for personal use.
 
dandirk said:
As usual TOR was not the primary method of the bust... Undercover agent in the organization.

Seriously this isn't the movies, the goberment doesn't have a magical hacker that can pound on a keyboard and in a week subvert the "scsi firewall and reroute the token tcp IDE traffic through a trace buster buster".

Yes the government are watching nodes, even putting up nodes themselves. There still have been very few if any reports of TOR being completely compromised. In every case I have looked into traditional detective work/mistakes broke the case.

Maybe there are it isn't known or reported...

As always never trust anyone or anything if you are paranoid.
Click to expand...


Or, the FBI has decided that no matter how much they can get via online surveillance nothing beats an agent on the inside when it comes to making a slam-dunk conviction.
 
nutzo said:
Sure, lets just legalize all drugs because nobody is ever hurt by using drugs.....

I agree that the war on drugs doesn't seem to be working, but legalizing them is going to cause even more problems.

First of all, who are you going to legalize them for? people over 21, over 18? What about 15 year olds? What about pregnant women? Do you really want doctors, bus drivers and airline pilots using hard drugs?

As much as I'm against legalization, I might be willing to consider meeting half way. How about decriminalizing it for anyone over 21, very harsh penalties for anyone selling or giving it to someone under 21, and drug testing anyone on government assistance (you test positive, and no more welfare, food stamps, etc.). If you want to ruin your life, then go ahead, just don't expect the taxpayers to support you.
Click to expand...

Why the hell would we legalize drugs for children? The problem is that adults should be able to decide what to and what not to put inside their bodies; it should not be the governments job to tell us we can't ingest something. A proper way to go about the whole "drug conundrum" is to legalize drugs for people over 21 years old and provide the best possible and most accurate warnings possible. If someone still decides to ingest a substance, so be it. They made an adult decision. Their employer has the end all choice whether or not to fire them.

Oh, and about doctors, pilots, etc using drugs.... Since when does someone have to do something just because it is legal. Alcohol is legal but I hate the effects it has on me so I don't drink. This conservative, close minded way of thinking is what prevents the world and society as a whole from moving forward.
 
SticKx911 said:
I agree with you. Drug use (especially in a criminalized state) should negate government benefits. If they fail they cant apply, if they fail while on...give 'em one strike. Clean up or we're taking your kids and benefits. (might wanna cover the cost of rehab as that'd be cheaper than taking care of kids in state custody). I'm all for helping people get to a better place in life, but that's only if they really want to try.
Click to expand...

no edit. I quoted the wrong convo, try not to flame too bad on that part. oops ;)
 
xIronCrossx said:
What just happened here? I never mentioned saving the children, you did. Also, "you people"? Ok. I'm gonna assume you are pretty young, maybe even younger than me, and don't have/want kids. You would have a different view if someone in your family or one of your children ever got hooked on a drug like Cocaine.

I do love how you keep putting words in my mouth and putting me into some kind of group of people. I don't think the government does everything right, but I also don't question everything and anything the government does.
Click to expand...

Here we go with the "I have kids therefore I have some sort of insight into tragedy that people without kids do not have" mindset. Just becuase you have kids doesn't grant you any more compassion for tragedy than anyone else. This idea that people with children have some sort deeper sense of loss if something tragic happens to their children than anyone else who suffers a loss of someone they love is quite offensive and utter bullshit.
 
masterosok said:
Here we go with the "I have kids therefore I have some sort of insight into tragedy that people without kids do not have" mindset. Just becuase you have kids doesn't grant you any more compassion for tragedy than anyone else. This idea that people with children have some sort deeper sense of loss if something tragic happens to their children than anyone else who suffers a loss of someone they love is quite offensive and utter bullshit.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? I never said I have kids. He brought up kids, hence why I mentioned them. I also mentioned family, which could include whoever you love (GF, wife, etc.).
 
xIronCrossx said:
What are you talking about? I never said I have kids. He brought up kids, hence why I mentioned them. I also mentioned family, which could include whoever you love (GF, wife, etc.).
Click to expand...

Why even bring up whether or not someone wanted or had kids? Its irrevelant unless you were implying that people who did would "understand".
 
masterosok said:
Why even bring up whether or not someone wanted or had kids? Its irrevelant unless you were implying that people who did would "understand".
Click to expand...

It's something that might be relevant? If you/your family has never been affected by any drugs then how would you know how bad it can be? Do you want your kids/family doing Cocaine? Heroin? I didn't think so.
 
xJ321x said:
They already were legal in the past. Doctors use to prescribe cocaine and do it themselves for a long time, it use to be in the soda Coke. Synthetic Heroin is used in hospitals, today, everyday! They give it to me before when I was in there and I'm fine. It didn't ruin my life. Also, sugar and tobacco are most addictive than cocaine, kill the most people every year, yet legal. This isn't about safety one bit. That's the propaganda to the peasants.

This is all about the government and big business controlling the drug trade. The CIA has literally been caught bringing cargo containers full of cocaine into this country all while the police arrest the people on the streets (the poor) distributing it.

Another fact, opium production has risen since the US has been in Afghanistan. I wonder why, not really.
Click to expand...

Love the way you think, let's see.....

The past has nothing to do with anything, at one point murder wasn't illegal anywhere in the world so what bearing does bringing up the past have. Your synthetic heroin was prescribed and administered by medical professionals. Sugar and tobacco, though certainly addictive are also not mind altering substances and although people do die from their use in truth it's more from abuse of the substances then just use. You see things through colored glasses designed to present the world in a view that allows you the luxury of an excuse.

The reason Opium Production has risen in Afghanistan is because because;
A. The US decided that messing with the local drug production didn't help our "Hearts and minds" mission.
B. Helping them sell products legally to western Pharma establishes a business link in the region that supports stable relations with the people there.
So in other words, production has increased as we helped them open up new markets for product while cutting out producers in countries not so friendly to us politically.
 
so because you can't raise your kids you get to decide for us


mmmmmk
 
xIronCrossx said:
What just happened here? I never mentioned saving the children, you did. Also, "you people"? Ok. I'm gonna assume you are pretty young, maybe even younger than me, and don't have/want kids. You would have a different view if someone in your family or one of your children ever got hooked on a drug like Cocaine.

I do love how you keep putting words in my mouth and putting me into some kind of group of people. I don't think the government does everything right, but I also don't question everything and anything the government does.
Click to expand...


I do have kids, and if one of them got hooked on cocaine, even if it was completely legal, I would not be blaming the government. Thinking that just because it's illegal is going to magically protect them is beyond laughable. You can see how well that's working. It's the job of parents to raise their kids to make the right choices, not the government.
 
xIronCrossx said:
It's something that might be relevant? If you/your family has never been affected by any drugs then how would you know how bad it can be? Do you want your kids/family doing Cocaine? Heroin? I didn't think so.
Click to expand...

Of course no one wants their family to suffer, but that mindset is oppressive. Does anyone want their family to suffer health issues due the many perfectly legal forms of addiction? No. I WOULD like for my family to have the right to choose what they want to consume. Many others have stated there are plenty of legal substances and practices that are just has harmful/destructive as the drugs you mention. And as other stated just because something is legal doesn't mean you have to do it. The fact of the matter is these substances aren't illegal for public saftey reasons and being illegal certainly isn't keeping people from abusing them. One could argue that the black markets created by them being illegal does more damage than the substances themselves.
 
xIronCrossx said:
You would have a different view if someone in your family or one of your children ever got hooked on a drug like Cocaine.
Click to expand...
I would feel different if someone in my family got addicted to tobacco (That is the number one cause of preventable death in the US, IMO, besides sugar), alcohol, anti-depressants, or when they're all dying young from being hooked on sugar. By the way, there was a study done.

I do love how you keep putting words in my mouth and putting me into some kind of group of people.
Click to expand...
Do you mean like when you told me my tinfoil hat was on too tight because you didn't know what I know? Weird.

I don't think the government does everything right, but I also don't question everything and anything the government does
Click to expand...
That might be societies number one problem right here.

"Government's first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives" - Ronald Reagan

And look at the bullshit he pulled...
 
lcpiper said:
Love the way you think, let's see.....
Click to expand...
That's ironic as I think you're a slightly brainwashed vet that has no reasoning skills when it comes to anything to do with the government. You've showed that time and again on this forum.

The past has nothing to do with anything
Click to expand...
Of course it does, that's how humans teach the next generations. What's that saying again about forgetting the past? Oh, yes, doomed to repeat it.

At one point murder wasn't illegal anywhere in the world so what bearing does bringing up the past have.
Click to expand...
Unjust killings were punished in cave man days (all tribes had rules to adhere to, umm, like now). Nice try though. The shitty christian bible is over 4,000 years old and has rules on not murdering innocent people...lol.

Your synthetic heroin was prescribed and administered by medical professionals.
Click to expand...
No, I asked for it as it was optional (allowed when the government allows it), so I requested it (it wasn't mandatory..lol), and I administered it myself through a button at my own discretion...you were saying? Oh wait, they gave me government allowed pain pills on the way out the door, too.

Sugar and tobacco, though certainly addictive are also not mind altering substances and although people do die from their use in truth it's more from abuse of the substances then just use.
Click to expand...
I literally just linked an article showing sugar alters neurons in your brain the same exact way cocaine does, oh wait, it was worse. :rolleyes:

You see things through colored glasses designed to present the world in a view that allows you the luxury of an excuse.
Click to expand...
Says the man that appears to me as blind in his once good eye.

The reason Opium Production has risen in Afghanistan is because because;
A. The US decided that messing with the local drug production didn't help our "Hearts and minds" mission.
B. Helping them sell products legally to western Pharma establishes a business link in the region that supports stable relations with the people there.
So in other words, production has increased as we helped them open up new markets for product while cutting out producers in countries not so friendly to us politically.
Click to expand...
Thanks for reaffirming what I've been saying, that the US government just wants to be the only one in control and distributing everything.

If drugs are so bad they should also be bad for pharmaceutical companies, too. After all, they're people, right?
 
All the drugs for some, DARE stickers for others.

<loud cheering>
 
nutzo said:
Sure, lets just legalize all drugs because nobody is ever hurt by using drugs.....

I agree that the war on drugs doesn't seem to be working, but legalizing them is going to cause even more problems.

First of all, who are you going to legalize them for? people over 21, over 18? What about 15 year olds? What about pregnant women? Do you really want doctors, bus drivers and airline pilots using hard drugs?

As much as I'm against legalization, I might be willing to consider meeting half way. How about decriminalizing it for anyone over 21, very harsh penalties for anyone selling or giving it to someone under 21, and drug testing anyone on government assistance (you test positive, and no more welfare, food stamps, etc.). If you want to ruin your life, then go ahead, just don't expect the taxpayers to support you.
Click to expand...


Legalizing does not mean there can be no regulations. Every modern society that has legalized (including our own history with alcohol prohibition) has meant a better outcome, socially, medically, and financially.

Legalizing based on the model for cigarettes and alcohol is a good way to go about it. Decriminalization misses too many important harm reduction steps, such as providing safe access to quality substances. You can set an age restriction for sale, 18 or 21, just as with alcohol and also add an excise tax on these items sold commercially/for profit (while excepting non-profits or small personal sale volumes under X dollars per year etc.), which can in turn be earmarked especially for dependence , education, and healthcare for those that overindulge.

And yes it should be "legal" for a pregnant woman to own/possess any drugs she wishes. Now, it is not at all advisable that she use them, but think about alcohol - which can do far more damage to a fetus, possibly irreversibly, than many other drugs. - it isn't illegal for her to possess nor even actually to use it. Likewise, it is legal for doctors, pilots, and forklift operators to buy, transport, brew their own, or partake of alcohol - what is not legal is doing so while they are working! Just like how it is legal for you to get drunk off your ass if you're going to walk home, but if you get behind the wheel of a car while drunk, that's the issue.

In truth, we need MUCH better diagnostics that can show a person is actually under the effects of said drug, along with legalization. For instance, "breathalyzer" like tests for marijuana can detect the metabolites way after the person is no longer experiencing effects, and both urine and hair samples can test positive for even MONTHS after use! We will absolutely need more accurate tests that can identify when the person is intoxicated because our current metrics are stone-age; then again, this isiin part because of illegality. The current tests are designed to find out if someone has used any of these substances at all, not just if they're currently high. Change the laws, science will provide better diagnostics.

On your final point about people on "government assistance" being kicked off for drug use, I'm afraid this is a bad idea financially, socially, and medically as well as being the kind of punitive measure I find unethical. First of all, realize that there are a ton of people who are on "government assistance" of some sort: Medicare for one, Social Security. Tricare and VA (Military), Disability (federal, state etc..) and much more besides assistance for low income individuals specifically. This would be disastrous to eliminate benefits for anyone as part of these programs and horribly unfair to boot. Next, it would encourage those who are most likely to have the least amount of education and greatest risk, to avoid "getting caught" and thus missing out on the resources that could be of them most help to them. This is to say nothing for those who have dependents who would also be affected. From an ethical standpoint, drugtesting "welfare recipients' because they're getting public money is horrid, especially if one is not proposing to test all those others who I described above (plus elected and appointed representatives!).

Legalization, with smart regulation is the best option around. Consider how alcohol was handled during our prohibition days compared to these days. Today, you know that when you buy alcohol deemed for sale it adheres to certain regulations on content, strength etc. Alcohol is easily available in a variety of safe venues and there are many different levels of specialty and quality items being marketed (ie want USDA Organic wine with no sulfites added? Enjoy! ".) . Taxes and funding from legal production bolsters the economy. You can brew your own alcoholic beverages and give them away legally. So long as you are not drunk in certain circumstances when it may cause direct harm to others (ie driving), you are legally free to drink as you wish. If you want to get blitzed every night yet come in to work sober, you can do so. There are a variety of programs for those who feel they may be abusing alcohol (though admittedly, we need a LOT of improvement in these programs and they vary too much, for drugs and alcohol alike). Few of these elements would have been possible under prohibition, to the negative effect of society, as easily seen throughout history. We suffer from a similar assortment of issues today, all of which would be remedied through a smart legalization strategy.

Another issue here I see often discussed is the "I don't want to subsidize others' risky behavior", but this is a short-sighted fallacy. Every single one of us today makes decisions that could be construed as risky to ones' health. Would you make it illegal to drink soda? How about going mountain biking, skiing, or scuba diving? Did you not eat as balanced a meal as you could have done? Do you exercise less than optimum? Like to hike? All these things could be part of risky pattern of behavior or less than optimal health. Unless we want a society where every single decision and even personal element (I don't even want to get into genetics and health). we make is fed into an actuarial table and we are penalized depending on how much it diverts from a calculated "optimum", which would be a disaster for individual freedom and enjoyment, the smart option is to say "How about we all pay in to cover the costs of risks to our health and we don't discriminate about those sort of risk.". Anything in between the two is simply moralizing on various activities.

People are never going to stop trying to alter their consciousness with substances for a variety of reasons Instead of fighting against this understandable behavior, we can legislate to make the process as safe as possible for those that choose to do so, providing help for those who find themselves overwhelmed, and overall improve the common good while maintaining individual freedoms.
 
Biznatch said:
I do have kids, and if one of them got hooked on cocaine, even if it was completely legal, I would not be blaming the government. Thinking that just because it's illegal is going to magically protect them is beyond laughable. You can see how well that's working. It's the job of parents to raise their kids to make the right choices, not the government.
Click to expand...
Besides, cocaine would certainly not be perfectly legal for minors, same alcohol and tobacco products aren't.

Besides, illegal doesn't mean unattainable... ask any college student. It just makes it more expensive and puts them in contact with drug dealers that act as a gateway from the minor "light" drug the shopper is interested in to the harder and more profitable drugs the dealer may push or provide free samples of (if they are highly addictive).

Remember how many people died or went blind and what not from the alcohol prohibition? And remember how its criminalization created gangsters with machine guns shooting cops and civilians? How was that safer than the regulated alcohol we have today?

Besides, its not like this question hasn't already been answered. They have legal pot and hookers in Europe, and the world didn't end. In fact, so far everything shows it was a success. Not that I agree with every social experiment they are into, but compare the crime in say Germany to SE Asian countries where they have a death penalty for possession of even relatively small amounts of light drugs like marijuana.
 
One point that I think often gets left out of these, sigh, polarized and repetitive discussions is peer review/quality control.

The 800lb gorilla in the room here is the compound MDMA.

Young people are going to seek out and use MDMA. The level of police state repression it would require to prevent this is too painful to contemplate.

The current climate of prohibition results in a plethora of "bathtub gin" low quality substitutes that are, at best, annoyingly speedy, and at worst lethal.

The various *.road sites have at least provided a bare minimum of peer review and feedback, a mechanism for word to get around in near real time.

Some, unadvisedly in my view, cling to the forlorn hope that we can somehow stamp out production, distribution, and consumption of these substances. The data is in. We can not.

The focus should be on harm reduction, and the *.road sites actually do this, in their own way, by filtering out impure and counterfeit product from the marketplace.

I'm getting tldr here, so I am going to close by directing anyone who needs it to http://www.ecstasydata.org/

I'm out
 
MDMA has been in numerous studies as a potential fix for people with PTSD.

MAPS is undertaking an eight-year, $18.5 million plan to make MDMA into an FDA-approved prescription medicine by 2021, and is currently the only organization in the world funding clinical trials of MDMA-assisted psychotherapy. For-profit pharmaceutical companies are not interested in developing MDMA into a medicine because the patent for MDMA has expired. The idea of using MDMA to assist psychotherapy of any kind for any specific clinical indication has long been in the public domain.

Source
Click to expand...
I also find it insulting that for over a decade the US government has held a patent on the potential benefits from Marijuana while at the very same time putting good people (non-violent people) in prison for using it or possessing it. Like I've said before, it's all about control with the government.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top