• 🇬🇧󠁿 🇸🇪 🇿🇦 🇮🇪 🇬🇭 🇩🇪 🇪🇺
    European & African
    Drug Discussion

    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • EADD Moderators: Shambles

"Biggest dealer" on Silk Road gets just 10 years

I have just one tattoo -- it's of Tux the penguin, carefully positioned on my right bicep so as just to be hidden by the sleeve of a standard man's T-shirt, but exposed by a girl's one. It's my ambition just to show it, without saying a word, to a visiting Microsoft sales rep one day and watch the enthusiasm just vanish from him (and it would be a him; I don't think I could bring myself to do it to a woman, even an MS rep).

My colleagues have noticed that I don't drink much (on a night out, I will usually alternate between lemonade and beer; and what with having to be a bit careful with bathroom visits anyway and also having experienced poverty, I can make a drink last a long time), and I jsut say sweetly that I prefer class A's -- which is the truth -- and of course they just think I'm joking.
Eveyvibe said:
However I stand by what I said they still deserved jail time as it's people like this that give vulnerable people access to substances they really shouldn't have access to.
Click to expand...
So do publicans and tobacconists (who between them cause about 120 000 deaths a year in Britain alone). Do they deserve jail time too? If not, why not?
 
Last edited:
I agree that there is hypocracy in terms of selling tabacco n booze compared with legal drugs yes. I feel that the law should change there too, although I'm not sure how. They've tried illegalising alcohol in Amercia in the early 20s n look what happened there. I'm one of the people affected by alcohol (now off alcohol a month) so I do see that argument. Alcohol can be just as dangerous n disruptive to a person's life.

Evey
 
So you can see the law is wrong but giving someone in their early twenties 2 life sentences for enabling a trade that was happening anyway is right ?

Not just enabling the trade, making it safer.

You're fickle. Wasn't so long ago you were on about trying dmt.
Seems to me that you'll say any old shit depending on weather you want to suck arse and fit in or get attention by going against the grain
 
Last edited:
bummer said:
So you can see the law is wrong but giving someone in their early twenties 2 life sentences for enabling a trade that was happening anyway is right ?

Not just enabling the trade, making it safer.

You're fickle. Wasn't so long ago you were on about trying dmt.
Seems to me that you'll say any old shit depending on weather you want to suck arse and fit in or get attention by going against the grain
Click to expand...

With some of that I agree. I DID say stuff to try n fit in but I'm slowly realising that it's better to state how I really feel n if people choose not to like me for having a difference of opinion I'll just have to find a way of living with that :) True I was thinking about trying DMT n other substances but true friends got me to realise that it wasn't a good idea. I've had mental health n addiction problems so consuming other substances would not help me. Anyway this isn't about me so moving on.

How did they make it safer? If you read through my comments on here I did suggest the possibility that the sentence length may have been too harsh but that I don't have access to the full facts (eg whether they cut the drugs with harmful stuff, whether people died or were injured as a consequence of purchasing substances from them) to really make a proper judgement on sentence length, however I do think they should serve time but I'm not a lawyer to argue for or against length of time.

While we're at it did they pay tax for the produce they sold? Tax avasion, drugs or no drugs, is against the law so c'mon they're not exactly innocent now are they?!?!?! Anyone trying to sell stuff n reaping in large sums of money without paying tax would, more than likely, be jailed.

Can I respectfully ask people to leave the name-call n petty insults out? This is a discussion n I've every right to have, and express an opinion as any other poster. I'm sorry that I don't agree with most of you. However, I am listening to your views n willing to change my viewpoints if they're challenged n I feel I am somehow wrong.

laugh said:
dude will be treated like a king in there and probably do more business too.
Click to expand...

Probably yea.

Evey
 
Last edited:
Eveyvibe said:
I agree that there is hypocracy in terms of selling tabacco n booze compared with legal drugs yes. I feel that the law should change there too, although I'm not sure how. They've tried illegalising alcohol in Amercia in the early 20s n look what happened there. I'm one of the people affected by alcohol (now off alcohol a month) so I do see that argument. Alcohol can be just as dangerous n disruptive to a person's life.
Click to expand...
The clue lies in the fact that making alcohol illegal actually made the situation worse, not better; and the damage only began to be reversed when the criminalisation ended.

We've all got to die of something, so to expect zero deaths from drugs (including legal ones, such as the industrial cleaning solvent alcohol) is frankly nonsensical. What we can do, is make sure that when -- not if -- people buy drugs, they know exactly what they are getting and how strong it is, to minimise the risk of overdose, and talhat anyone who is beginning to develop problems get help at the earliest possible stage; which is when a person has the best probability of making a full recovery and with the least amount of damage done. This, in turn, requires comprehensive drugs awareness education that goes beyond abstinence-only, so they know the difference between fun (yes; taking drugs can, and if done right actually should, be bloody good fun) and not-fun-anymore, and with no parental veto because the kids whose parents would withdraw them from such education are the very ones who need it most; and also requires there not to be any obvious disincentives against seeking help, such as being treated like a criminal or being expected to inform on their dealer.

Continuing with prohibition is on the same level of stupidity as attempting to fight fires using petrol, on the basis that according to the law of averages, sooner or later it ought to be bound to put the fire out instead of just exploding like it has every time previously up until now.
 
They made it safer as customers could leave feedback.
No face to face contact means nobody gets robbed hanging around alleyways or because they've been seen leaving a dealer's house.
As for tax evasion. Isn't that another reason to legalise ?

You mention vulnerable people. Well some people are just bound to fuck up. Take away their drugs and they will drink. Take away their drink and they'll sniff glue.

Why should the law focus on these people.
The law can't protect vulnerable people. That is not what the police are for.
The nhs and social service are there for that. Giving people criminal records doesn't help. It hinders them when they apply for jobs and puts them in a system design for bad people.

There's a big difference between vulnerable people and bad people. Wouldn't you agree?


What about the people who work hard or study hard, who are there for their families and pay into the system ?
What exactly is so wrong with them taking a drug that isn't alcohol ?
It's never done me any harm.
I am also a parent. I protect my kids from dangerous drugs the best I can by talking honestly to them.

That's my responsibility. Not the government's.

All this legislation is just an assault on my freedom.
And what's worse is it doesn't even work.
 
Last edited:
Eveyvibe said:
Can I respectfully ask people to leave the name-call n petty insults out? This is a discussion n I've every right to have, and express an opinion as any other poster. I'm sorry that I don't agree with most of you. However, I am listening to your views n willing to change my viewpoints if they're challenged n I feel I am somehow wrong.
Click to expand...

that is an outstandingly rich statement from someone who routinely insults staff members with the most vile and uncalled for remarks.

You recently and not for the first time called a moderator a Nazi in a public post.......go and check what the Nazis actually did, I find that a massively offensive remark.

As far as your stance on the prohibition of drugs, the problem is it is hard to know where to start when your views seem so shallow and inconsistent.

BL's mission of HR isnt compatible with prohibition, if you can't see that prohibition does nothing to stop people taking drugs but adds a raft of dangers to both user and society then you are just ignoring the bare facts.

Make statements in support of prohibition here and expect to be robustly challenged from people with opinions backed up by well considered and fact based argument, prohibition has been a total failure (it hasnt always existed) I can't see one of it's goals that has been achieved. When a process doesn't work you look to change it, continuing with something that doesn't work is the definition of stupidity.

No one here would claim that drugs are harmless, far from it. All drugs legal or otherwise have their risks and side effects and some people will die when they take them, simple facts.

People continue to take illegal drugs regardless, so the idea that we can stop them has been proven not to be the case, no amount of money or resource could achieve this and no law enforcement claims different.

So as it stands we spend huge amounts of public money making almost no impact on drug use whilst criminals make millions and people are exploited and killed worldwide as part of the huge organised crime organisations that control supply.

Adulterated drugs kill people every day, when the clean product is relatively safe, see my MDMA PMMA example.

Because of the stigma as well as prohibition young people are not getting the information they need to use drugs more safely and make more informed decisions.

I'm passionate about the blatant lunacy of the situation, you'll find that all genuine academic studies conclude much the same, IMHO you're just buying the BS you've been fed without bothering to look at the real situation, I'm at a loss as to why you would choose to frequent a site like BL if you hold such views, it would be like me joining the local Conservative club and then being taken aback that my socialist views werent welcomed 8)
 
Rather than locking a guy who ran a website up for life, how about crippling debt? It's 50/50 you'd off yourself either way.
 
Eveyvibe said:
Ummmm drugs are illegal for a reason - they kill people as well as cause people to become addicted. They may have been making money out of vulnerable ppl who are addicted. I don't believe the sentences are harsh. How many deaths n ODs have occurred at the hands of these two? They will be able to have some form iof life that people who died won't have.

Evey
Click to expand...

Seriously?

Yes, drugs can be harmful and addictive. But unlike other black market goods - weapons, for example - drugs have only one purpose: to get the person that uses them high. By your logic, as others have pointed out, every licensed retailer in the world should be prosecuted for selling alcohol, tobacco, and even caffeine (which causes physical dependance and withdrawal symptoms, even if it isn't as harmful as the others).
 
Dioxy said:
Seriously?

Yes, drugs can be harmful and addictive. But unlike other black market goods - weapons, for example - drugs have only one purpose: to get the person that uses them high. By your logic, as others have pointed out, every licensed retailer in the world should be prosecuted for selling alcohol, tobacco, and even caffeine (which causes physical dependance and withdrawal symptoms, even if it isn't as harmful as the others).
Click to expand...

Not strictly true. Drugs can be used as a weapon. Many in vice circles can testify to such. Roofies etc, all used for various scenarios.
 
IF it is genuine.

If it was genuine one might have expected charges to be brought on those things. None ever were and there is more than a hint of FBI setting up about them.

His life sentences are for Silk Road alone, nothing to do with supposed ordering of assassinations.
 
Wenlock said:
Not strictly true. Drugs can be used as a weapon. Many in vice circles can testify to such. Roofies etc, all used for various scenarios.
Click to expand...

They can be used for nefarious ends, but that's by no means the reason for their existence. By extension, anything can be used to harm anyone - a rock looks benign enough until you hit someone over the head with it. But my point, which I believe is still valid, is that something like a gun is designed to be used by someone to affect someone or something else. Also, if we're thinking about drugs being used to cause harm, a roofie is just a benzo, it has a legitimate use as a hypnotic. It's only dangerous to other people in the same way that 'spiking' someone's beer with vodka could be.
 
StoneHappyMonday said:
IF it is genuine.

If it was genuine one might have expected charges to be brought on those things. None ever were and there is more than a hint of FBI setting up about them.

His life sentences are for Silk Road alone, nothing to do with supposed ordering of assassinations.
Click to expand...

I know. There is something fishy about the entire thing.

Ulbricht, who the prosecutors have sought to prove is that Dread Pirate Roberts, hasn’t been charged with murder-for-hire in his Southern District of New York case, though he faces charges that include conspiracies to sell narcotics, launder money and more. (He does, however, face murder-for-hire charges in a separate case in Baltimore.) In fact, the prosecution admitted in court that the purported victims of the Silk Road killings were never found, and that Canadian police couldn’t even locate records for anyone with their names.
Click to expand...

If they do intend prosecuting him for this, why would they release this evidence into the public domain? Surely that would jeopardise any trial? I dunno.
 
Before the sentencing the parents of the victims of drug overdoses addressed the court. Ulbricht broke down in tears. “I never wanted that to happen,” he said. “I wish I could go back and convince myself to take a different path.”
Click to expand...

This kinda annoys me. Anything that goes global (Motorcycles, Snowboarding, Rock Climbing) is going to collect casualties. They don't show the suffering and death from cancer to tobacco companies. Ross is doing no different than what is already legal.

Seems he softened up and went back on all his ideals to win the mercy of the court, but didn't work. Maybe he should have stuck to his guns because he was in for life regardless,
 
It's not just tax. Fags were legal for years without being heavily taxed. I'll tell you why. Because the tobacco companies became powerful lobby groups. And because nicotine is a drug without a high but with addictive properties. The perfect drug for society.

Why is alcohol allowed? Same reason. Addictive drug forced on us by a powerful lobby. And a drug with no noticeable lasting high, just a depressant of the CNS with overuse. Again, the ideal drug for society.

You think it's coincidence the good drugs, the drugs with potential to open our minds up are illegal? Think again.

Burn it down.
 
Raasyvibe said:
This kinda annoys me. Anything that goes global (Motorcycles, Snowboarding, Rock Climbing) is going to collect casualties. They don't show the suffering and death from cancer to tobacco companies. Ross is doing no different than what is already legal.

Seems he softened up and went back on all his ideals to win the mercy of the court, but didn't work. Maybe he should have stuck to his guns because he was in for life regardless,
Click to expand...

Raasy

Do you disagree with this sentence???? Not having a go at you as you've a right to your opinion but I assumed you'd be glad as you appear to be against drugs nowadays n was annoyed when I asked you about a certain substance for obvious reason. Please don't think i'm trying to go at you here as honestly I am not. I'm not just to clarify what are your views re this?

At first I felt it was justified, especially if it's true that he's hired hitmen to kill people. However, I do see where some people are coming in terms of drug dealers getting higher sentences than people with more venial mistakes. It's a complex thing really because I'm not aware of sentencing / laws in Holand or the US. Will need to do some reading when I have a moment.

DS thanks for link - will look later.

As I said you do have a good point when you mention a lack public identification of deaths or illness (cancer) caused by tabacco companies compared with deaths or illness caused by illegal substances sold on the black market. Guess the media is very clever. I read some articles on this put on another forum that we both went on - don't know if you've read them but they're an interesting read.

Evey
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top