Dark Web Drugs Raid Leads To 179 Arrests (bbc.com) 152
Police forces around the world have seized more than $6.5 million in cash and virtual currencies, as well as drugs and guns in a co-ordinated raid on dark web marketplaces. The BBC reports: Some 179 people were arrested across Europe and the U.S., and 500kg (1,102lb) of drugs and 64 guns confiscated. It ends the "golden age" of these underground marketplaces, Europol said. "The hidden internet is no longer hidden", said Edvardas Sileris, head of Europol's cyber-crime centre.
The operation, known as DisrupTor, was a joint effort between the Department of Justice and Europol. It is believed that the criminals engaged in tens of thousands of sales of illicit goods and services across the U.S. and Europe. Drugs seized including fentanyl, oxycodone, methamphetamine, heroin, cocaine, ecstasy and MDMA. Of those arrested 119 were based in the U.S., two in Canada, 42 in Germany, eight in the Netherlands, four in the UK, three in Austria and one in Sweden.
The operation, known as DisrupTor, was a joint effort between the Department of Justice and Europol. It is believed that the criminals engaged in tens of thousands of sales of illicit goods and services across the U.S. and Europe. Drugs seized including fentanyl, oxycodone, methamphetamine, heroin, cocaine, ecstasy and MDMA. Of those arrested 119 were based in the U.S., two in Canada, 42 in Germany, eight in the Netherlands, four in the UK, three in Austria and one in Sweden.
Dark Web Lives Matter (Score:4, Funny)
Time to burn down eBay.....
Probably even worse than indicated for Dark Web (Score:3)
The amount of drugs and guns and money don't even seem like a ton, the real value they got out of those busts is probably a TON of further information on who is buying through the dark web and lots of other connections... the intelligence agencies having a field day right now.
Re: (Score:3)
The amount of drugs and guns and money don't even seem like a ton, the real value they got out of those busts is probably a TON of further information on who is buying through the dark web and lots of other connections... the intelligence agencies having a field day right now.
What someone got was a promotion. Since for the relatively small number of people, small quantity of "illicit" drugs that any doctor could prescribe and the presumably negative effect on society, by pushing up the cost of drugs and therefore frequency of property crime, it certainly wasn't done to benefit anyone outside the police and security forces.
Re:Probably even worse than indicated for Dark Web (Score:5, Insightful)
... it certainly wasn't done to benefit anyone outside the police and security forces.
Nothing in the "war on drugs" benefits anybody else. Well, it does benefit the authoritarians that want to control people's lives and their bogs claims that their actions are in some sense beneficial or even essential.
Overall, it just does a lot of damage to society, because anybody that wants drugs will get them anyways, anybody else would not get them even if legal. There are enough people that do not smoke and either do not consume alcohol or do not do it in problematic quantities. The illegality just causes additional problems (health issues from non-medical grade drugs, criminality to pay for overprices drugs, etc., also refer to all the problems the alcohol prohibition caused in the US). The claim that freely available (medical grade!) drugs would lead to a catastrophe is completely bogus. That state of affairs was standard _before_ the insane "war on drugs" started, and nothing like that happened back then.
Re:Probably even worse than indicated for Dark Web (Score:5, Insightful)
The claim that freely available (medical grade!) drugs would lead to a catastrophe is completely bogus.
And there's the hypocrisy. You don't want the government preventing you from doing any drug you want, but at the same time you want the government to spend taxpayer money so you can do whatever drug you want as well as have the taxpayers pay for anything which goes wrong.
No. You want to do drugs, have at it. Just don't expect me to pay for it.
What? And where do you read anything like that in my statement? Are you on drugs?
Re: (Score:2)
What? And where do you read anything like that in my statement? Are you on drugs?
I was going based on your use of the word medical grade to differentiate from street grade (i.e. you don't really know what's in it).
Further, your previous comment about paying for overpriced drugs would lead one to believe you are for the government paying for the drugs and giving it to people.
Still further, your comment about freely available drugs not leading to a catastrophe is completely at odds with the daily reports of drug overdoses and deaths which again would lead one to believe you are for the go
Re:Probably even worse than indicated for Dark Web (Score:5, Insightful)
Lets see:
1. Medical grade means produced according to medical standards. You may be able to get that on the street as well, but clearly I was _not_ talking about that. Also that is a _secondary_ use of the term.
2. Overpriced comes from the illegality and the artificial scarcity that brings. (Well, not really, you can get drugs everywhere...) Quite obviously. Most currently illegal drugs are not expensive to manufacture.
3. Freely available drugs would have to create _more_ damage than when they are illegal. There is absolutely no rational base to expect that and historical precedent that it does not. Sure, there is damage and quite a bit of it. But making these substances illegal _increases_ the damage and hence is irrational.
In short, you assumed a lot. All wrong. Tells me the level of quality your mental processes work on.
Re: (Score:2)
Come to think of it, maybe you have trouble with the English language? For your information, "freely available" in this context means "easily available" or "easily and legally available". It can mean "available for free", but as that is an entirely different discussion, that is very obviously not what I meant. That is just your preconceptions talking.
Re: (Score:3)
Come to think of it, maybe you have trouble with the English language? For your information, "freely available" in this context means "easily available" or "easily and legally available". It can mean "available for free", but as that is an entirely different discussion, that is very obviously not what I meant. That is just your preconceptions talking.
In the hypercharged world of political shitslinging and massive divide, accusing you of bringing forth some "socialist" idea was exactly what the parent was falsely implying.
Re: (Score:2)
Come to think of it, maybe you have trouble with the English language? For your information, "freely available" in this context means "easily available" or "easily and legally available". It can mean "available for free", but as that is an entirely different discussion, that is very obviously not what I meant. That is just your preconceptions talking.
In the hypercharged world of political shitslinging and massive divide, accusing you of bringing forth some "socialist" idea was exactly what the parent was falsely implying.
Ah, now I see what his problem is. Makes sense. Thanks!
Re: (Score:3)
All of your conclusions are neither logical not true.
In Switzerland most "addicts" get medical grade drugs, and no one dies due to an overdose.
Re: (Score:2)
Just don't expect me to pay for it.
Damn, you sure?
Alright then, I was totally going to smoke some crack, but only if you were picking up the tab.
Guess I won’t after all. Thanks for the heads up.
By the way, you can say that about a lot of things, know how many things I fund that are strictly for other people?
Why should you get to dictate where yours goes?
Re: (Score:2)
A blanket legalization of "drugs" is foolish. The downside of "drugs" varies wildly depending on the substance. Weed, okay you get the munchies, your sperm count goes down bit, and you probably shouldn't be operating heavy equipment while using. LSD, yeah you may have a cool trip or have a bad one and end up in a psych ward. Speed, well short term it may make you more productive, long term you get depression, anxiety, and psychosis.
The argument that legalization will make them cheaper so folks won't resort
Re: (Score:2)
No, the prohibitionists are 100% responsible for the *marginal* harm caused by prohibition.
How could it be any other way?
If the harm was less without prohibition, then you are responsible for the excess harms created by prohibition.
You are blaming the rape victim for being raped.
Re: (Score:3)
> If indeed the situation would be better overall with drugs legal, then prohibitionists would bear marginal (i.e., some small fraction of the overall) responsibility.
They would bear the full responsibility of the marginal (additional) harm caused by prohibition.
Now.. the first fundamental theorem of economics states that when the assumptions of the free market are met, the market will reach a pareto optimal equilibrium allocation where no one can be made better off without making someone else worse off
Re: (Score:2)
> The primary cause is the illicit drug manufacturers/distributors/dealers
No, they are the suppliers of economic goods, demanded by a population maximising their utility... They benefit society the same way grain growers or potato farmers benefit our society, by fulfilling the wants of others.
The suffering comes from the prohibitionists, that gift the market to criminals (by definition), they are responsible for the violence, the property damage, and the lives lost due to overdoses and impurities... beca
Re: (Score:2)
> But your position suggests a callous disregard for the well-being of people
It is the first fundamental theorem of neoclassical marginalist welfare economics....
Of course it's all about people's well being... but it takes the unusual stance of measuring that well being according to the individual's subjective estimation of well being...
A drug user considers themselves better off when they have drugs... is that assumption too much for you?
It is not a callous disregard, it's a deep, principled regard for
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, if you legalize the good drugs, the shoddy drugs will become cheaper. It's a marketplace after all. It doesn't matter to the dealer whether it's legal or not, as long as it is cheaper than ANY other option he will have customers.
So you'll still have the same problem, except more people will be able to afford it.
What needs to happen is those people that make poor decisions get 3 chances: first time you go to a mandatory facility for recovery, second time you go to jail with mandatory recovery, third time we just treat your decision as a DNR.
You are completely mistaken. Historical precedent says that the "good" drugs will not be expensive in the first place and that basically nobody has any incentives to buy the shoddy ones. Do you see masses of people buying cheap, dangerous moonshine? No? That is not because it cannot be made or distributed. That is not because it would not be significantly cheaper. That is because cost is not the only factor and below a certain level becomes a minor factor in a buying decision. Also, distributing substances
Re: (Score:2)
Given that most/all of the customers do not really matter in the greater scheme of things, I doubt that.
This is just more of the insane "war on drugs", that has now failed for about a century but has done incredible damage. Time to end this and remove the people that drive it from power.
Re: (Score:2)
Time to end this and remove the people that drive it from power.
That’s why we have identity politics and daily moral panics. To keep them in power.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Probably even worse than indicated for Dark Web (Score:5, Interesting)
I would expect that they use these patterns to find the seller vallets. They probably make some purchases themselves to verify. And then they use other purchases and transfers by the sellers to identify them. All this can be prevented, but it is exceptionally easy to make a mistake and one is enough. The next generation of sellers will be more careful.
Careful people don't sell cocaine on the internet (Score:2)
> The next generation of sellers will be more careful.
Nah, I don't think so. Careful people don't sell cocaine on the internet. That's a stupid people thing to do.
If a careful person wants to sell guns for a living, they carefully fill put the ATF paperwork, and thereby don't go to prison.
Re: (Score:2)
$6.5 million (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
is money that could have been put to work in our communities if drugs were legal.
Yes, if only the US government sold methamphetamine, heroin, cocaine, ecstasy and MDMA, we could have given all the money made to our communities. The government could just sell the 64 guns, and we could give that money away too. Or maybe the US should just legalize all those things and tax their sales. Communities wouldn't get all of the money that way, but they'd at least get some of it. Of course you'd have to subtract some of that money, because some communities would inevitably buy the guns, methamp
Re: (Score:3)
Well it's a good thing no one is using all that stuff now... prohibition is clearly not doing a good job of that, but it does enrich the mafia and destroy your own civil rights, which is nice.
Re:$6.5 million (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:$6.5 million (Score:5, Insightful)
>I don't believe in prohibition.
>But I don't believe in legalization of hard drugs
Isn't that a big contradiction? If they are not legalized, they remain prohibited.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't that a big contradiction? If they are not legalized, they remain prohibited.
Usually people say that when they want use to be legalized, but not production/dealing.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't that a big contradiction? If they are not legalized, they remain prohibited.
Usually people say that when they want use to be legalized, but not production/dealing.
I think the people who think that don't understand that if it's legal, buyers would buy it from a shop and not deal with sketchy dealers.So the perceived problem is not such a problem. Consider sugar, which is far more damaging overall - it's legal and you buy it in stores. Just because it messes up your liver and metabolism you are not forced to get it from a hoody guy with a poor complexion, standing on a street corner.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
> I don't think you can rightfully say sugar is more damaging overall than drugs
It's more damaging than any other drug, in terms of health care costs and life years lost...
That is partly because of its popularity... while other drugs would mess you up faster than sugar, almost everyone is overdosing on it.
The only thing that would probably be worse for society than sugar would be sugar prohibition or prohibitive taxes.
Re: (Score:2)
Illegal drugs “mess you up” largely because of impurities added to illicit drugs. But addicts can and do live long, productive lives. Look at Keith Richards.
Go to your music collection, book collection, and art collection, and throw away everything made by a “drug user”.
It would be a pretty bleak existence.
Michael Jackson, Prince, Cobain, shit, the most influential people of our very society were heavy drug users. Some of them so for a great many years.
There are 100 year old opium
Re: (Score:3)
Isn't that a big contradiction? If they are not legalized, they remain prohibited.
Usually people say that when they want use to be legalized, but not production/dealing.
What a fail. The main damage done by most illegal drugs do is due to bad or variable quality, too high cost, lack of more benign alternatives and lack of freely available reliable information. All that goes away if production becomes legal, but controlled according to already existing medical standards.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed.
Re: (Score:2)
There seem to be a lot of people opposed to drug use but who also see drug prohibition, especially at the user level, as non-functional but they can't get themselves to legalization and wind up thinking decriminalization (not arresting users but still arresting dealers/producers) as useful.
I think what they really want to prohibit isn't some structured and regulated distribution of drugs, but the kind of commercialization you see with things like alcohol, where use and consumption is encouraged and advertis
Re: (Score:3)
And the stigma/risk of asking for help.
It's not illegal to play basketball, so when you roll your ankle or sprain a wrist, you go to the doctor.
It is illegal to possess recreational drugs, so when you have a substance abuse problem, or OD or someone you love does, there's the inherent risk that asking for help could cost you a job, friends and family, and/or your freedom.
Everyone acts like alcohol is somehow benign, but it's worse than a LOT of recreational drugs. Yet in the US we don't have issues with peo
Re: (Score:2)
but if they make poor decisions, the rest of the tax base should not be responsible.
That’s a common 98er point of view, but of course, it’s not how societies work. We all underwrite the risk of our fellow citizen.
Do you drive a car? Ride a motorcycle? Ride a skateboard? Drink booze? Overeat? Pork whores? Own a pet? Go hiking? Fly? I could go on.
Chances are very high that you incur risk for the rest of us. I’m sure you would draw a conurer’s circle around your risks, though, and
Re: (Score:3)
Isn't that a big contradiction?
Not if you understand the meaning of "prohibition" vs "legalization" vs "decriminalization" in this context.
Re: (Score:2)
Not if you understand the meaning of "prohibition" vs "legalization" vs "decriminalization" in this context.
Really?
So if I make a mistake and use certain terms incorrectly, my position should just be that the audience “didn’t understand them in my context”?
Is there no limit to human delusion?
No, the mistake was yours. You contradicted yourself. It was correctly pointed out as such, Feel free to clarify, but for crying out loud, please don’t do the “no, you didn’t unde
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Decriminalization is the worst of all worlds.
I disagree. Marijuana has been decriminalized where I live, and it's reduced the load on the police, the courts, and the jails.
Users end up with bad (or poisonous) product, and it's delivered by the mafia because they're the only ones willing to do it.
Decriminalization doesn't cause any of that. That's what we have right now. I'm just sick and tired of people getting thrown in jail for drug use, and decriminalization addresses that problem.
Better to legalize and regulate it, or not at all.
For relatively harmless drugs like marijuana, sure. For things like heroin, crack, and meth? Again, I have to disagree.
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree. Marijuana has been decriminalized where I live, and it's reduced the load on the police, the courts, and the jails.
Did you decriminalize marijuana production and distribution, or just production? If so, you misread. If not, you're full of shit.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you decriminalize marijuana production and distribution, or just production? If so, you misread. If not, you're full of shit.
We didn't decriminalize any of that. We decriminalized simple possession/use of marijuana. If you think I'm full of shit when I say it's reduced the load on the police/courts/jails...well, more power to you I guess.
Re: $6.5 million (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, so now I'm full of shit for a different reason. So keeping the production/distribution of hard drugs illegal while not throwing users in jail means I support organized crime? Got it.
Gee, I really had no idea how full of shit I was until you came along. Thanks!
Re: (Score:2)
Did you decriminalize marijuana production and distribution, or just production? If so, you misread. If not, you're full of shit.
Again? Wow, people sure do “misread” you a lot.
Either that, or they read you correctly, but you lack the ability to admit that you made a mistake.
Re:$6.5 million (Score:4)
I don't believe in prohibition. It's never worked for anything. But I don't believe in legalization of hard drugs like those mentioned in this story. Decriminalize, and stop sending users to jail is the way to go, IMO.
Bingo. Legalize soft drugs (marijuana, maybe mushrooms and some other psychedelics), decriminalize possession of other drugs and treat them as a public health matter, with treatment and prevention (through education and, OMG, good jobs) as the focus. Locking up desperate people for making mistakes and being desperate or dumb helps literally no one. Jailing drug offenders costs us money to hold and care for them, it tears families apart (repeating the cycle), it makes them desperate and hopeless when the get out (recidivism, anyone?), and harsh penalties clearly don't prevent drug-related crime.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't believe in prohibition. It's never worked for anything. But I don't believe in legalization of hard drugs like those mentioned in this story. Decriminalize, and stop sending users to jail is the way to go, IMO.
Very much so. Prohibition is about controlling people, it is not about doing good. Because that does not work and cannot work. No prohibition has ever worked and there is no sane reason to expect any will ever work. There is not even any sound indication that prohibition of drugs reduces consumption. In fact, it may do the opposite, because if the trade is controlled by criminal enterprises they are not bound by any standards and limitations how they can acquire customers and there is, of course, absolutely
The reason you legalize hard drugs (Score:2)
This is much, much cheaper than fighting a literal War on Drugs like we have (the police are well enough armed these days to call it literal). It's also vastly more human and better
Re: (Score:2)
is so you can treat them as medical issues. You legalize and then the government gives them away for free to addicts. They're given to the addict in a safe, controled location. As soon as the addict comes down from their high they're in a safe gov't controlled space where they immediately get treatment & social services.
You don't have to legalize hard drugs (in the sense they're commercially available to the public) in order for the government to treat addicts.
As for your "treatment" proposal, I sure as hell don't see how the government giving away free heroin to junkies, waiting for them to come down, only then to treat them, is a solution to anything. Jesus, you don't treat heroin addiction with more heroin. You detox, treat the withdrawal symptoms with substitute drugs, gradually wean the addict off of those, and get
Re: (Score:2)
Most drug users are not even addicts.
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit it hasn't worked for anything.
- Murder is prohibited. Are you under the impression that we would have FEWER murders if murder was legalized?
- Underage drinking is prohibited. Do you think we wouldn't see a massive spike in alcoholism if we allowed children to start drinking? And what about the exploitation of those inebriated children?
- And then there's Marijuana. Do you think the massive expansion in the demand for cannabis products in places where marijuana has been legalized has been simple coin
Re: (Score:2)
Murder is prohibited. Are you under the impression that we would have FEWER murders if murder was legalized?
That’s not really the goal, to have fewer people use drugs.
The goal is to have fewer people die from it, or have their lives ruined, or have their neighborhoods overrun by crime while stopping the spread of things like civil forfeiture which is being abused as we speak.
Alcohol prohibition is actually a relatively recent and much better example than murder. After some time of being illegal, soc
Re:$6.5 million (Score:4, Informative)
Methamphetamine, I understand, is addictive from the very first time you take it.
No known substance behaves like that. Some repetition is always required. This lie is pushed by the prohibitionists because that nicely demonizes substances and drones out accurate information. A few decades ago, the same claims were made for Heroine and Cocaine.
Re: (Score:2)
"No known substance behaves like that."
Except heroin
Re: (Score:2)
Heroine, neither.
Believe it or not, the substance that makes most easy addict and is hardest to get rid of is: nicotine.
Some ppl say crack makes more or less addictive instantly, but that is also hard to believe.
Re: (Score:2)
"No known substance behaves like that."
Except heroin
Sorry, but no. Heroine is quite addictive, but a single does does most decidedly not do it. You have fallen for some propaganda-lies there.
Even Crack does not do it after a single use and it was specifically designed to get you hooked as fast as possible.
Of course, if you think you have finally found a solution for some other problem in a specific substance, you can start regularly taking it for that reason. But that works for any kind of psychoactive substance, including sugar. It is not addiction to that
Re: (Score:2)
"No known substance behaves like that."
Except heroin
My God.
See what we’re up against in the states?
And these last two posters probably represent the mainstream.
We have an average IQ of 98, folks. Temper your expectations.
Re: (Score:2)
You're not going to become physically dependent on opioids after a single exposure. But you CAN demonstrate symptoms of addiction, which is after all an incredibly squishy term (which is why we have other more complicated terminologies, like "physically dependent".)
We treat certain drugs different from other drugs because they are different. That doesn't justify our current tendency to overreact, which as we all should know by now is done for political and economic reasons. But there's no reason NOT to trea
Re: (Score:2)
You're not going to become physically dependent on opioids after a single exposure. But you CAN demonstrate symptoms of addiction
Oh here we go some more ...
How I wish they never passed that law that made it illegal to say “I don’t know”.
See folks, nobody knows everything. There’s tons of things we all don’t know.
When encountering one of these things, it’s okay to say as much, or say nothing at all.
You actually don’t need to make shit up. It’s true. No, I s
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone is different and all substances affect different people in different ways and/or to differing degrees based on a dizzying array of factors including biological, behavioral, and even social ones. People often forget this when it comes to anecdotal evidence about drug use in particular.
Re: (Score:2)
..yeah, well, considering how the average meth user looks and acts, I don't see why anyone would want that shit legalized. We got enough fucktards in this country as-is, we don't need more people using shit that makes them even more insane and stupid.
As I repeatedly stated:
1. Making it illegal does not reduce use
2. Making it illegal increases damage done
Nobody is comparing the stuff to candy. It is dangerous. It maims and kills. But making it illegal makes things _worse_. And that is the reason it should be legalized. This is a problem for the medical community to deal with. Law makers and law enforcement have done enough damage and had zero beneficial impact.
Re: (Score:2)
A few decades ago, the same claims were made for Heroine and Cocaine.
Sure, sure, the average heroine user is just so healthy and productive, and I know damned well what happens to long-term cocaine users.
Don't you get it? People are too stupid to take these things seriously and they just fuck themselves up and everyone around them. Legalizing them isn't going to make anything better. FFS it's not like I haven't known people who were drug users.
You make an entirely wrong assumption here: You assume, without proof and solid supporting data, that making this stuff illegal helps. It does not. Nobody is claiming this is not a serious problem. Nobody is claiming this stuff is not very dangerous. That is just your misconceptions talking. You seem to think that making something illegal automatically solves the problems with it. That is not the case.
Remember the alcohol prohibition? It nicely demonstrated this effect. As far less people are interested in
Re: (Score:2)
An addiction to hard drugs can develop more quickly when the person using them is experiencing (severe) emotional pain and/or trauma.
Substitute “hard drugs” with just about anything that gives people relief, and your statement won’t just be accurate, it will be obvious.
Unless you’re saying this is only true for “hard drugs” and not booze, food, whacking off, and reading Slashdot.
Re: (Score:2)
Methamphetamine, I understand, is addictive from the very first time you take it.
(Facepalm)
No. It most definitely is not.
May I ask where you heard such a thing?
Re: $6.5 million (Score:2)
Oh look, an idiot. The dems were pushing just as much for drug control. Nixon's primary contribution was to consolidate the disparate efforts already made into one agency.
Re: (Score:3)
if drugs were legal
How does legal meth benefit anyone in any circumstance?
Re:$6.5 million (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
1) It benefits the person who wants to use it and can acquire it cheaply at a pharmacy.
2) it benefits the person whom's house is not burgled by the user and deprived by stuff which is valuable to him, but for the robber just enough to get the next dose (as he has to sell it quickly far under value)
3) it benefits the person that does not get robbed at gunpoint for the $50 he has in his pockets because the user wants them
4) it benefits the persons whom's car is not broken open, or stolen
5) it benefits YOU
Re: (Score:2)
How does legal meth benefit anyone in any circumstance?
It is legal now. It’s called Desoxyn and your doctor can prescribe it. Today. Now.
It benefits narcoleptics, those with ADHD, oculogenic crisis, anaphylaxis, and some other things. More or less the same things people use Adderall for. In fact, some find Adderall (racemic amphetamine) to be stronger than meth, Meth is just a war on drugs boogeyman and is the subject of a moral panic. It’s otherwise just another drug in the amphetamine cla
Re: (Score:2)
Very much so. This is the police and the legal system creating work for themselves and sucking up money. And if you add the damage they are doing here, the amount of money destroyed is far greater.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey Rick,
You're a right wing laissez faire free market conservative, right?
Have you ever tried understanding the first fundamental theorem of economics or are all your opinions informed by right wing conservative tv shock jock pundits and ignorance?
Yours Sincerely,
Proc.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll take that as a statement of your ignorance of decision theory and economics in general.
Just another clueless idealogue...
Boring.
Only caught the amateur Americans and Germans (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Only caught the amateur Americans and Germans (Score:5, Funny)
And the two Canadians are very sorry and have already apologized, so... what now, eh?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They try the mouse in the bottle, I think.
Re: (Score:2)
They try the mouse in the bottle, I think.
They already tried that first, you hoser.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Low hanging fruit is the best they can do, eh?
Low hanging fruits are quite enough for the press they want in order to get more power and money and to create the appearance of "doing something".
Re: (Score:2)
Is it rational to pick the greatest reward for the minimum effort when doing anything.
Re: (Score:2)
Especially when the high level drug dealers are well connected untouchable murderers... don't want to mess with them...
Of course, by going for the low hanging fruit, you generate a selective pressure on the drug dealers, meaning only the high level, well connected, untouchable murderers will remain...
Smart move of em, huh?
They be trollin' (Score:2)
The operation, known as DisrupTor, ...
A pretty unsubtle shot at the Tor project, I'd say.
Re: (Score:2)
It's still a better name than 99% of their stupid acronym-based names. Even the ones in Naked Gun 2½, such as the "Key Atomic Benefits Office of Mankind" or "KABOOM", made more sense.
Re: (Score:2)
It was funded by Naval Research, not done by it. Ask Roger Dingledine about it some time. He believes they did not understand what they were funding.
Legalize drugs (Score:2)
and stop this nonsense.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
If you end up in a hospital bed, and you happen to have diabetes, it won't stop them adulterating your drip with glucose. It doesn't have to be illegal to be damaging.
*slow clap* (Score:2, Interesting)
Interesting that they'd want to take down one of the only safe ways to acquire illegal drugs. It's almost like they're going after the people who pose no threat to them and hurting the most vulnerable in the process.
Also: 6.5 million seized? Might want to look south of the border, where most estimates have at least 10 Billion in annual profits for Mexican drug cartels alone. https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
Re:*slow clap* (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree that even if you wanted to legalize all drugs, some drugs like fentanyl and methamphetamine are problematic.
What I wonder, though, is if less potent substitute versions of drugs like this *were* legal if it was shrink the demand for these high potency versions.
There is something in the history of illicit drug use where the organic demand for a type of drug originally was a much less potent version. Up until the 1920s, smoking opium was the preferred variant, even though more potent varieties were o
Re: (Score:2)
Well, all drugs should be legal... the problems of prohibition don't change because of the particular chemical involved... the problem is prohibition.
Anyway, someone got a Nobel Peace Prize for your observation... It's known as the Iron Law of Prohibition (I'll let you look it up), that when a drug is prohibited, because smuggling and transport become the main cost, it will be substituted for more dangerous and concentrated forms.
Ie, people use meth because of, not despite, prohibition.
Re: (Score:2)
That's fascinating, I didn't even realize there was a mathematical proof derived from economics!
I guess my concern with "all drugs being legalized" is the near-term effect of bravado, machismo or some similar phenomenon where people wind up going all-in on getting maximally intoxicated. I can see a typical college student with the pharmacopoeia at their disposal deciding that 5 mg oxy is a joke, why not 60 mg, and then let's layer on some ketamine, cocaine and some xanax.
In college, there were always these
Re: (Score:2)
> That's fascinating, I didn't even realize there was a mathematical proof derived from economics!
It is a fascinating subject... and it is mostly all mathematical proofs... because of the impossibility of doing controlled experiments, they have had to be very rigorous in their proofs...
A lot of STEM guys piss on economics as a 'soft science', but they've never studied the subject, so how would they know... not a very scientific approach for the so called scientific community...
Anyway, I love it, worth l
But how? (Score:2)
LEOs lie. (Score:2)
Look whether you believe there should be an open marketplace, the law enforcement "officers" lie.
They didn't "capture" anything they say. They always inflate the "street value" and the "quantity" of stuff that "could have been" sold.
They didn't remove the illegal drug market. No, that one is unaffected.
They didn't get a single BTC account. Nope, not a one. They got some encrypted laptops. Nothing of value.
It's just PR work. That's all. If you're not sure, there are plenty of other articles I won't li
Next on the list? (Score:2)