Silk Road Drug Dealer Pleads Guilty After Federal Sting 215
Ars Technica reports that
A 26-year-old Columbus, Ohio man has pleaded guilty to selling drugs through the Silk Road website. David Lawrence Handel apparently obtained methylone and other drugs from a supplier in China, which he then sold to buyers on the online black market. Among those buyers were Maryland federal agents, who were making undercover purchases. Handel shipped the drugs to them through the US Postal Service, according to the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Maryland. ... Handel faces up to 20 years in prison for drug trafficking and up to life for using and possessing a firearm. His sentencing is scheduled for May 15.
uh... (Score:5, Informative)
Handel faces up to 20 years in prison for drug trafficking and up to life for using and possessing a firearm.
No. For using and possessing a firearm in the commission of a crime. Using and possessing a firearm is not itself a crime.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if the definition of use is a matter of carrying the firearm while engaging in an illegal activity (ie, drug trafficking and distribution) even if his intention in carrying the firearm was to prevent someone from mugging him and taking the cash he had on his person.
Using a Firearm According to the Supreme Court (Score:3)
He might have already been a convicted felon, and if he was then even possessing it could be a felony.
I wonder if the definition of use is a matter of carrying the firearm while engaging in an illegal activity (ie, drug trafficking and distribution) even if his intention in carrying the firearm was to prevent someone from mugging him and taking the cash he had on his person.
The Supreme Court actually reversed *all nine* of the Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal on the issue of whether simply carrying a firearm during the commission of a felony was enough to prosecute them for "using" the firearm. It was kind of a landmark case. That being said, Congress just amended the law to make carrying the firearm during the commission of a felony an additional offense.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
The Supreme Court actually reversed *all nine* of the Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal on the issue of whether simply carrying a firearm during the commission of a felony was enough to prosecute them for "using" the firearm. It was kind of a landmark case. That being said, Congress just amended the law to make carrying the firearm during the commission of a felony an additional offense.
But that additional offense is a 5-year "enhancement" of the other sentence. Nowhere does that say anything about "life". So I'm wondering where the life sentence supposedly came from.
I can think of one scenario: he was on probation for some other capital offense, and carrying the firearm was a violation leading to escalation of his previous sentence. Or some such.
Re: (Score:2)
I can think of one scenario: he was on probation for some other capital offense...
A "capital offense" is one that is punishable by the death penalty. I really don't think he would be on "probation" for a capital offense.
Re: (Score:2)
A capital offense is one for which you CAN get the death penalty. Not necessarily for which you DID. People getting out in less than 10 years on good behavior has been depressingly common. Gotta make room for all those pot smokers, don't you know.
Be careful not to justify government corruption. (Score:2, Troll)
Part of the reason the prison rate is so high is that, in the U.S., prisons are a very profitable business, with little oversight and plenty of chances to be abusive. For some detail, see Matt Taibbi's book, The Divide [amazon.com].
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, states with Republican governors have been going balls-out for privatized prisons. They're the worst idea yet in an economic system that's seen a century-long string of bad ideas. How anyone could think that it was smart to have private industry run prisons is just beyond me. And I'm not talking about some contractors brought in to provide food service, but that the entire prison would be a for-profit industry is just insane.
Re: (Score:2)
It is actually perfectly rational: You just need to have a high-level of greed, sadism and no human compassion whatsoever. Then you can see parts of the population as worse than slaves, to be exploited in any fashion possible. That this also destroys cohesion of society and makes everybody a lot poorer, less secure and more afraid is something these people either do not understand or do not care about. Yes, you will find these people in the "dangerously insane" section of catalogs of psychic disorders.
Re: (Score:2)
How anyone could think that it was smart to have private industry run prisons is just beyond me. And I'm not talking about some contractors brought in to provide food service, but that the entire prison would be a for-profit industry is just insane.
Well, it worked so well for health care.
Re: (Score:2)
The U.S. government has a higher percentage of its citizens in prison [wikipedia.org] than any country in the history of the world. (The rate of 707 prisoners per 100,000 population is artificially reduced because of all the exclusions. [wikipedia.org])
I was actually surprised to discover that all the countries fall below 1% incarceration. I would guess that if you asked a
random person on the street what percentage of the population are in prison most people would give you a number greater than
1%.
glad to know judge got 28 federal years, until 85 (Score:4, Informative)
I just read a bit about that. I'm glad to know the judge got sentenced to 28 years in federal prison, which actually means 28 years (unlike state time). He won't get out until he's 85, if he lives that long. Being a corrupt judge in federal prison, I suspect he'll be dead long before he gets out. Federal inmates tend to dislike corrupt judges, and federal inmates sometimes do bad things to people.
Re:glad to know judge got 28 federal years, until (Score:5, Insightful)
This attitude is part of everything that's wrong with the prison system. The idea that prisoners should be relied upon and expected to met out additional extrajudicial punishment to other prisoners. The idea that prison rape is "ok" because it's happening to other prisoners.
what IS versus what SHOULD be (Score:2)
> The idea that prisoners should be relied upon and expected to met out additional extrajudicial punishment to other prisoners.
The fact is that a corrupt judge spending 28 years in prison probably WILL have some hard times. That doesn't say what SHOULD happen. It's a statement of what DOES happen. No "should" or "should not" about it, it's simply fact.
I've noticed this type of confusion also comes up every single time I post what the law is on a subject. I post "the maximum sentence under section 215.1
Re: (Score:2)
"I recently heard about a case called "Kids For Cash", where a judge was sending lots of juveniles to a privatized detention center and getting paid for each."
Actually, two judges: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Quote: For example, Ciavarella adjudicated children to extended stays in youth centers for offenses as minimal as mocking a principal on Myspace, trespassing in a vacant building, or shoplifting DVDs from Wal-mart.
Re:Using a Firearm According to the Supreme Court (Score:5, Interesting)
But that additional offense is a 5-year "enhancement" of the other sentence. Nowhere does that say anything about "life". So I'm wondering where the life sentence supposedly came from.
Here is a link [justice.gov] directly to the prosecutor's statement. They claim the penalty for possessing a firearm while trafficking drugs is "5 years to life". Either way, he has already accepted a plea bargain, so it is likely in the low end of that range.
He was dumb. He took a gun with him to pick up the package at the post office. Was he really planning to have a shoot out over a $4800 package? Don't carry a gun unless you are prepared to use it. He shouldn't have even picked it up himself. Instead he should have paid some underage kid to do the pickup.
Re: (Score:3)
Here is a link directly to the prosecutor's statement. They claim the penalty for possessing a firearm while trafficking drugs is "5 years to life". Either way, he has already accepted a plea bargain, so it is likely in the low end of that range.
That is just reinforcement of my general point. In recent years the Federal government has been notoriously dishonest, and prosecutors have famously lied to judges all over the place. There are at least a few cases of judges getting really pissed off about this, and imposing sanctions on the offending prosecutors. But such cases have been too rare, in my opinion.
I say that in part because we had a local government prosecutor who basically refused to prosecute cops for any reason, except in a few exceptio
Re: (Score:2)
That's not really a good example of Federal government dishonesty, but I take your point.
Re: (Score:3)
A main characteristics of a Police State is that they can prosecute and lock up anybody for as long as they want, often with some window-dressing "procedure" and paperwork that is basically a malicious construct. Currently they are perfecting their methods on people that actually have done something wrong in the eyes of the general population (which has no clue about ethics and is mostly controlled by propaganda), but the next step, which they already have started to implement, is to put away anybody they d
Re: (Score:3)
So, your assertion about the future is based on what, exactly? Crystal Ball? Oracle of Delphi? Genuine tin-foil time machine?
Re: (Score:2)
Simple: Quite a bit more knowledge of history and quite a bit more common sense than you have.
Re: (Score:2)
If the police hired smart people, they would question laws they are told to enforce and refuse to enforce the ones they thought were unjust... and we cant have that.
If I was an officer of the law, it would be my duty to enforce the law as is, including laws I felt were unjust. If I disagreed with a law, I should work to get it repealed, but until it is repealed, it IS the law.
Re: (Score:2)
The last thing I want is cops choosing which laws to enforce and which ones not to.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like a plan, so you are fully OK with being pulled over and given a $150 speeding ticket for going 1mph over?
I'll let your local police department know that you are happy to be cited for every single possible infraction.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a big difference between "using discretion" and "refusing to enforce laws they thought were unjust."
Also, to be honest, if every single law were enforced on everyone, all the time, it might wake people up that "hey, maybe there are too many laws..."
Re: (Score:2)
He might have already been a convicted felon, and if he was then even possessing it could be a felony.
I wonder if the definition of use is a matter of carrying the firearm while engaging in an illegal activity (ie, drug trafficking and distribution) even if his intention in carrying the firearm was to prevent someone from mugging him and taking the cash he had on his person.
The Supreme Court actually reversed *all nine* of the Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal on the issue of whether simply carrying a firearm during the commission of a felony was enough to prosecute them for "using" the firearm. It was kind of a landmark case. That being said, Congress just amended the law to make carrying the firearm during the commission of a felony an additional offense.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
The court documents including the indictment are here [plainsite.org]. The charge for the firearm says: COUNT TWO
The Grand Jury for the District of Maryland further charges that:
On or about August 22, 2012, the defendant,
DAVID LAWRENCE HANDEL
did knowingly use and carry a firearm, that is a Glock 26, Serial Number SRP018, during and in relation to a drug trafficking crume for which he may be prosecuted in a court of the United States, that is, Conspiracy to Distribute and Possess with Intent to Distribute a contro
Re: (Score:2)
Since you took the time to call out slashdot and ars and even Tiffany Kelly, I thought I'd double-check your work. Thanks for providing the link.
Like you say, the firearm count is a double-your-penalty enhancement.
So I looked up the first count, under 21 USC 841 and it says: "a term of imprisonment which may not be less than 10 years or more than life"
http://www.law.cornell.edu/usc... [cornell.edu]
Therefore, it is true that the firearm charge could give him an additional life penalty. Your complaint was a misrepresentati
Re: (Score:2)
Since you took the time to call out slashdot and ars and even Tiffany Kelly, I thought I'd double-check your work. Thanks for providing the link.
Like you say, the firearm count is a double-your-penalty enhancement.
So I looked up the first count, under 21 USC 841 and it says: "a term of imprisonment which may not be less than 10 years or more than life" http://www.law.cornell.edu/usc... [cornell.edu]
Therefore, it is true that the firearm charge could give him an additional life penalty. Your complaint was a misrepresentation to spread more hate.
While the crime defined in 21 USC 841(a). is straightforward, the penalties are wide and varied depending on quantity. None of the reports I've read indicate how big that package was or exactly what it was even. Just that he mailed some agents some drugs and got caught with others in the post office. The indictment doesn't specify either. Maybe the author had other details she didn't share? Or it seems more likely she embellished to get clicks. I don't feel the least bit like I'm spreading hate. We
Re: (Score:2)
On or about August 22, 2012, the defendant, DAVID LAWRENCE HANDEL did knowingly use and carry a firearm, that is a Glock 26, Serial Number SRP018, during and in relation to a drug trafficking crume for which he may be prosecuted in a court of the United ....
That looks copied and pasted, but still, a drug trafficking crume? I hope that's a legal term and not a typo in official records or something lol.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:uh... (Score:5, Insightful)
So he "used" a firearm thru the internet or thru the mail, pretty neat trick. The IoT is more interesting than I thought. :)
He carried it on him while he was doing the rubber meets the road part of his business, and that's using it in the commission of a crime these days. Society's logic goes like this: He wouldn't have been carrying the weapon, nor would he have been risking wanting to use one to protect himself, if he hadn't been transporting illegal goods for commercial gain. Of course, there is also a certain amount of logic to the view that if those substances weren't illegal, none of that shit would have been going on at all, and society not only wouldn't have been risking gun violence but also would be able to tax whatever economic activity did occur. Arguably, it's the state that has created the dangerous situation.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Look at Colorado. Legalized marijuana and the Mexican gangs are moving in to supply cheaper product.
Ah yes. The Mexicans. What has the result of US foreign policy towards Mexico? What has been the result of US drug policy towards Mexico? Don't be ignorant. If we legalize drugs at the federal level, then most of the problems with Mexico will solve themselves in relatively short order as the money being used to fund the drug war dries up.
Here's the deal.
You can stick that deal up your arse, it will be in good company with your massive fucking ego. You're not in a position to dictate terms.
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't want government intervention you can't be a hypocrite and expect it to intervene on your behalf.
Yes, like SS should be abolished, and the old people who die destitute from neglect deserved it for not saving when they were younger. You'd better abolish our democracy as well while you are at it, as most people support a "safety net" of some kind (yes, even the ultra-conservative). So you won't get your way when it comes to a vote.
Re: (Score:2)
As for "saving when younger" well, yeah, you should have been saving more when you were younger, I know im gonna have issues when i get older because of my recklessness as a youngster, I got enough time to make it better but if i didnt i wouldnt blame anyone but myself
Re: (Score:2)
Except most retirees take more out of SS than they ever paid in... a pyramid scheme which goes back to the beginning.
Actually it's a tax on workers and a handout for retirees. If it was an actual retirement plan, it would be something that a retiree could have go to someone else when they die. I can have my son inherit my house, my bank account and my car when I die... but oddly not most o
Re: (Score:2)
Except most retirees take more out of SS than they ever paid in... a pyramid scheme which goes back to the beginning.
Like everything else in America, it's based on endless expansion. If we had continued our push for space instead of stopping at the moon, maybe we could have had that by now, although I'm not surprised it didn't happen that way.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You are so naive. In the UK, many people had final salary pension schemes. The schemes were run by the employers (only fair since they guaranteed certain payouts). The schemes had to be fully funded, so that the benefits would be paid out if the employer went bankrupt. Well, guess what, the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Let's not forget the windfall tax on private pension pots Gordon Brown helped himself to when he became Chancellor back in the late 1990s. That made a lot of funds underfunded, but Labour didn't care.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
From what I can find, the Post Office doesn't even rank in the top 15. Medicare is first, law enforcement second, and Social Security third.
Next is Defense and then National Parks. But this is a Harris survey and I have doubts about them.
http://www.harrisinteractive.c... [harrisinteractive.com]
Re:uh... (Score:5, Interesting)
Right, because legalizing something instantly removes the criminal aspect. Look at Colorado. Legalized marijuana and the Mexican gangs are moving in to supply cheaper product.
Citation please? I did some Googling to confirm this claim, but found nothing supporting it. The claim itself is odd, how is there more money to be made in a legal regulated market?
I did find this [usfinancepost.com] however. The story asserts that Mexican gangs are getting involved in the Colorado pot business for money laundering since it is a cash only business. In other words, they aren't really selling pot, only pretending to do so to legalize money from other sources.
And why is Colorado pot a cash only business? Because Federal pressure prevents them from using the same payment processing and banking systems other legal businesses use. Banks and payment processors won't take their money or the Feds will drop the hammer on them. In other words, the Federal government is creating this business opportunity by prohibiting normal business practice. If you prohibited any other business from using banks, forcing them to be cash only, the same thing would happen.
Re:uh... (Score:4, Insightful)
This is an important point. The inability of legal pot dealers to access banking services is one of the things guaranteeing that criminality will remain in the industry.
Re: (Score:2)
I hadn't heard about this previously. If the owners of those businesses can't use banks what are they doing with all that money? Or is it just that they can't use banks for the transactions but are still able to make deposits at the end of the day?
Re: (Score:2)
Look at Colorado. Legalized marijuana and the Mexican gangs are moving in to supply cheaper product.
If only there was something that could be done about that. maybe along the border of mexico and the USA. I dont know maybe a fence or something....
no, mexican gangs are only a problem because of how lax we are at border control
Re: (Score:2)
No, it does not. Nevada legalized gambling in 1931 and the criminal aspect is still deeply entrenched at every level of gambling in Nevada. Same thing with prostitution.
I am in favor of decriminalization of certain recreational drugs, but make no mistake, it is not a salve that will remove all criminality from the drug market. I don't use them, but it's a shame that so many people are in prison or unemployable because they have or
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
While I don't have the numbers, I'd bet the cost of treatment would pale in comparison to the billions spent on the "war on drugs" and the cost of prosecuting and incarcerating a large percentage o
Mexican gangs and "cheaper" Colorado pot (Score:3)
Look at Colorado. Legalized marijuana and the Mexican gangs are moving in to supply cheaper product.
I've heard the prices at Colorado pot stores are high (or maybe less cheap than some predicted), but they also (at least according to the media) are doing great business.
I don't doubt that Mexican gangs could smuggle in field-grown average quality pot, but who would bother with street dealers when you could walk into a retail store and buy much better product without any risk?
I don't see the retail operators
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
no, your government bans drugs because it's a useful way of suppressing blacks, mexicans, chinese, hippies, dissidents and other undesirables.
it's also a great way of disenfranchising them from their vote when posession is treated as a felony.
Re: uh... (Score:2)
Many states now give felons the right to vote back after they have served their time in prison or on probation.
Re: (Score:2)
no, your government bans drugs because it's a useful way of suppressing blacks, mexicans, chinese, hippies, dissidents and other undesirables.
Really? Well, perhaps that is an aspect of it, but I can think of several other factors:
- Most voters are deeply reactionary (in the sense that they are very reluctant to accept any change from status quo, whether good or bad), and the current view of most ordinary people is that 'drugs are bad'. Insight and understanding don't enter into the picture, because most people's opinions are based on hearsay rather than knowledge - they have been taught not to trust their own ability to understand things, so they
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, fairly priced a kg of top notch hash should cost something like 1 USD (citation: thin air, I'm just guessing), so even with the usual, over the top taxation, a gram would be astonnishingly cheap, and the drugs cartels wouldn't have any business.
What the actual fuck? You pull numbers from nowhere saying a kg of 'top notch' hash should cost a dollar? You cant get a kilo of anything for that. But based on the figures your ass produces that is the reason drug kingpins are so rich and powerful. I'm sure a load of them would love to have a legit product, sell in bulk to suppliers (a lot like they do now) only without worrying about officials from another country fucking with their shit on every level. The price would be set by the market as it is with e
Re: uh... (Score:2)
Not particularly. For many, many years one would get a disproportionately higher sentence for the drugs people of color used despite the fact that they were less damaging to the body physiologically. Obama was the first president that tried to make all sentences for all illegal substances uniform. Furthermore the original laws put in place banning marijuana were sponsored by the robberbarons of the early 20th century who used white fear of images of crazed blacks and brown people to garner support state by
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder what quantity he was caught with? To get to that type of sentence in Australia he needs to be in possession of at least a kilo.
Re: (Score:2)
It is actually up to Life for the drug charge, and the gun is an enhancement that doubles the original, so it is 2 Life charges, not 20 Years for one.
And since nobody was injured during the crime, the drug charge is 10 years to Life. It would be 20-Life if somebody got hurt. So there is a number 20 in the law, but not in the part cited in this case.
None of that matters, of course, since he made a deal.
Re: (Score:2)
Also sent guns to cartels sudeño.
Life for Firearm Possession? (Score:2, Interesting)
So... He gets 20 years for trafficking substances across international borders that will rot your brain out, but he can get life for possessing an item for personal protection? Which item was doing more damage to society? It wasn't the firearm.
I know, I know... People like to tack on + as if having one or not having one changes what was in the first place. Thing is, it doesn't.
Rob a convenience st
Re:Life for Firearm Possession? (Score:4, Insightful)
Tell that to the store owner who goes through the psychological trauma of having a gun pointed in there face, many people are seriously fucked up after such incidents. The difference between the two incidents for the victims is massive.
Re:Life for Firearm Possession? (Score:5, Interesting)
Tell that to the store owner who goes through the psychological trauma of having a gun pointed in there face, many people are seriously fucked up after such incidents. The difference between the two incidents for the victims is massive.
That would only happen if the store owner is *threatened* with the gun. If the crook simply had the gun hidden on his person, the end result would have been the same whether he had the gun on him or not. Of course, a crook simply carrying a gun does increase the chances that he'd panic and shoot someone. On the other hand, a crook using a knife instead has a much higher risk that some idiot will get himself killed playing the hero because "it's only a knife".
Of course, a life sentence for merely carrying a gun seems like begging for said gun carrier to start using it.
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, bad guy robs a convenience store with a gun, and unless the worker is also armed, chances are the worker is going to comply so they don't get shot and killed, and bad guy made the easiest money with the least risk.
Conversely, if the bad guy robs a convenience store without a g
Apropos of nothing... (Score:2)
I am all for punishing hard people who use weapons during crimes. Using weapons during a crime increases the chances of people being hurt. It is so obvious that I wonder if you are trolling.
Apropos of nothing, how does possession of a firearm in an illegal mail order business increase the chances of people being hurt?
Re: (Score:2)
Apropos of nothing, how does possession of a firearm in an illegal mail order business increase the chances of people being hurt?
That's a good question. However, they caught him in a U.S. post office (which is supposedly Federal property) with a gun on his person, during commission of a crime (he was there to pick up drugs).
While one still has to wonder how that would endanger anybody, except for cops who might do something stupid, it did involve him interacting with others in person.
Still, I'm basically on your side in this argument. It should take a very serious crime indeed to deprive someone of the right to self-defense, by
Re: Apropos of nothing... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, most Post Offices are owned by private individuals and leased back to the Government for use. As such, the building itself is legally exempt of the Federal Building restrictions and regarded much the same as any other private establishment. There have in fact been court cases regarding this, especially those regarding people getting injured at the property and the actual owners being liable rather than the USPS, establishing precedent. Brandishing a firearm in a threatening manner in a public location or threatening a federal employee is another matter, and carries with it quite severe penalties though.
Almost complete bullshit.
While most US post ofices are in leased buildings, they are still federal facilities.
Please, as an experiment, "open carry" a shotgun into a post office, and tell me how that works out for you?
Re: Apropos of nothing... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Carrying a gun doesn't meet that definition. There have been a number of possies that formed in modern Dallas where long guns were open-carried, without issue. All were in response to poor police response in poor areas.
Did they try walking into a federal facility with open carry guns? Probably not.
Folks, it's simply not legal regardless of if the Feds own the building or lease it. That's why at stand-alone US postal facilities there is a sign that informs you that firearms on the premises are prohibited.
This isn't an argument about the pros and cons of open carry and whatever amendment the gun nuts are in love with, it's simply a statement of fact.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, most Post Offices are owned by private individuals and leased back to the Government for use. As such, the building itself is legally exempt of the Federal Building restrictions and regarded much the same as any other private establishment. There have in fact been court cases regarding this, especially those regarding people getting injured at the property and the actual owners being liable rather than the USPS, establishing precedent. Brandishing a firearm in a threatening manner in a public location or threatening a federal employee is another matter, and carries with it quite severe penalties though.
Regardless of ownership, a Post Office is still usually considered Federal territory, exempt from State law. The liability question sounds like typical Government hypocrisy: "we claim authority but no liability".
Brandishing a firearm in a threatening manner in a public location or threatening a federal employee is another matter, and carries with it quite severe penalties though.
EXCEPT on Federal territory, laws governing this are entirely State matters and vary from State to State. Laws about Federal employees are yet another matter, and activities that the Feds claim are illegal are in fact explicitly LEGAL in some States. For example: a few states have passed laws saying
Some people aren't cut out for some careers... (Score:2)
These LEOs can sit and pluck low hanging fruit all the livelong day, just like Stone Phillips & Crew..
Re: Some people aren't cut out for some careers... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Cmon big bucks no whammys no whammys... [youtube.com]
Freedom Will Not Be Tolerated (Score:2, Insightful)
How dare he supply drugs to people how make a concious choice to buy and use them!
Free choice should not be permitted! The government must dictate to us what we can do with our own bodies and how we should live our lives! Furthermore, they should closely monitor us to make sure we are following their instructions.
It's for our own good!
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. I am all for requiring some reasonable form of qualification that anybody can get (being 18 years old, doing a course on safe drug use on the level of a driving-test, etc.), but once you have that, it should be your decision and yours alone. Sure, things driving with significantly reduced capacity should make you liable for the part of the risk you cause (locking people up is not helpful, but having them pay their share of the potential damage into a pool that victims get compensated out of is). But
Re: (Score:2)
lol license to toke I like it. Re-driving under the influence, I have no problem and if somebody drives under the influence take their drivers license away for at least a year. And if they hit anything or heard anybody send them to jail.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
you know, nobody in the entire history of the world has EVER seen or heard drug dealers talk or act like that outside of moronic american movies and TV. it just doesn't happen, ever.
that's because addiction doesn't fucking work like that. it takes a lot more than a few hits of ANY drug to addict someone - and even then the addiction potential has a lot more to do with social and environmental conditions (like poverty, or hopelessness) than it has to do with the drugs themselves.
get yourself fucking educat
Re: (Score:2)
Competently done studies say basically not at all. Of course, this requires a sane definition of child, like below 14 years or so. But here is the kicker: Until a few years ago, it was legal to work as a prostitute here when you turned 16. There were almost none that did, because brothel owners did not want them and customers did not either, they cause just too much trouble due to immaturity. And the other thing is that the only "forced" prostitution that exists is because of economic need on the side of th
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Freedom Will Not Be Tolerated (Score:4, Informative)
because the biology of addiction was invented in the 1900s, right?
oh, and look, the opium wars, drug pushers weakening and subjugating an entire civilization:
http://www.sacu.org/opium2.htm... [sacu.org]
but nahhh... until the 1900s the world was a utopia of drug use with no downside, right?
you really should educate yourself, on basic pharmacology and history, before you comment on a topic
or your words only serve to show how ignorant you are on a topic
the simple fact is, ever since groog wanted to drown his sorrows in fermented fruit all day instead of carry his weight in his tribe, drugs have been a problem
the drug addict, since even before we had fully evolved as humans, to today, and as long as we exist, is a weakness
it creates people who cannot support themselves. this is why society has to intervene
i'm not saying our current interventions work. the usa drug policy is fucking stupid. but because our methods suck doesn't mean the problem isn't real
portugal for example has much better *tactics* in the war on drugs (healthcare for addicts, prosecute pushers)
but the war on drugs has been going on forever, and will go on, forever
it's simply a maintenance function of civilization
if you don't understand that drug use costs us all, or don't admit, you're a fucking moron on this topic
if you deny that not everyone uses them responsibly, if you deny that many become addicts, you don't understand a fucking thing you are talking about
drugs will always be a problem. because people *always* misuse them
START with that thought, then you can say something intelligent about drug use and drug policy
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
clearly that isn't exactly true, just look at the state china got into due to the British feeding opium into the Chinese market for a century. The level of drug addiction reached due to that open and free market brought the entire country to its kness with a nation of addicts.
Re: (Score:2)
You got modded down because you are saying "nuh uh" without any evidence, and common sense (and any historical knowledge) shows that China wasn't as addicted as you imply, simply because the British made it available.
Re: (Score:2)
it's like arguing with creationists or free market fundamentalists or antivaxxers
there's a belief, that contradicts reality and proof, and if anyone points that out them, instant emotional rejection
for pro drug morons, it's: misuse is simply a product of social laws and norms, not the actual drug. they actually believe a substance that highjacks biochemical pathways in the brain far stronger than willpower does not create problems, only pathetic social reactions to that does. incredible
marijuana should be l
Re: (Score:2)
Fewer problems? I think you forget the opium wars.
Re: (Score:3)
Except that it actually is true. Sure, drugs did damage, but significantly less than they do now because they were clean and affordable. And the number of junkies was not higher. The "war on drugs" has done exactly nothing to reduce usage in the about 100 years it has been running. It has done tremendous additional damage though. Maybe have a look into some history text some time?
re: drug dealers getting people hooked (Score:2)
Honestly though, I suspect it rarely plays out quite that way.
What REALLY happens is a drug dealer (like everyone else) wants to hang out with a group of friends and have fun sometimes. Of course, being addicted to a substance means he/she only stands a chance of keeping friends around who partake in the same activity. So people who are already drawn to that lifestyle for whatever reason spend time with the dealer, getting some drugs free and other times probably being asked to "chip in" for their cost. On
Re: (Score:2)
Ban fast food and candy if you really mean it. Nanny staters...
Imagine... (Score:2)
...if he was also caught with some illegally downloaded movies! Probably be hung drawn and quartered in the main square of some Texas town.
The US Post Office? (Score:2)
Remember: When it absolutely, positively has to be there overnight.
Sending anything via the US mai where the legality might even be questionable is opening yourself up to having postal regs heaped on top of everything else.
Screw them. Ship it UPS/FedEx. If the customer complains, its almost certainly a sting operation.
Can't believe he was doing this from the U.S. (Score:2)
I always figured Silk Road style drugs were sold from overseas sellers, since it seems pretty obvious the government is really good at tracking internal citizens...
Really not a good idea to sell drugs illegally these days in the U.S., especially as new legal drug channels are opening up across the U.S.
Style Violation (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And Dice.com
Re: (Score:2)
If the anonymity and privacy on offer by onion routing for dissidents, journalists, NGO is trackable on domestic local enforcement budget then what are other well funded nations doing on their internal telco networks?
If the US at a police level can
Re: (Score:2)
The thing is that the Silk Road only did transfer money and transaction agreement. The seller still has to ship the product somehow. That is harder than it sounds when you have to expect part of your customer-base is trying to identify you in order to destroy you and your business. It still can be done, but it requires some advanced skills.
Re: (Score:2)
This strikes me as a great opportunity to use delivery via cheap drone. Although I suppose that would mean you'd need a delivery person of your own on the customers end which kills the advantage of an online seller. And it wouldn't have saved this guy anyways since he was busted picking up his product.