Dread Pirate Roberts...a real life Heisenberg (kinda)

Wow. Life in prison for providing people with substances that on the whole won't have caused any damage. In fact quite the opposite as I believe there were reviews etc so people knew who were trusted sellers.
I know this guy wasn't a very nice fella, but that concept is seriously fecked up. Obviously he deserved serious prison time, being prepared to kill and all, but there's no mention of that by the judge. Just that he was selling drugs.
 
I have only just heard about this but surely he just set up and maintained the platform/marketplace for the sellers rather than actually selling the drugs which is done by whomever puts themselves forward as a trader. Much like how ebay doesn't sell anything itself other than the provision of space for others to sell.

People have to go to a reasonable degree of trouble to utilise Silk Road and it's counterparts. Firstly discover its very existence - Install a specific type of browser and possibly VPN - Obtain BitCoins - Search the market place and filter through peer reviews on goods and service - Figure out how to utilise encrypted messaging to order etc.

Hardly the quintessential image of drug dealing that springs to mind. The life sentence is clearly being used to send a message to the community involved in these things.
 
I have only just heard about this but surely he just set up and maintained the platform/marketplace for the sellers rather than actually selling the drugs which is done by whomever puts themselves forward as a trader. Much like how ebay doesn't sell anything itself other than the provision of space for others to sell.

People have to go to a reasonable degree of trouble to utilise Silk Road and it's counterparts. Firstly discover its very existence - Install a specific type of browser and possibly VPN - Obtain BitCoins - Search the market place and filter through peer reviews on goods and service - Figure out how to utilise encrypted messaging to order etc.

Hardly the quintessential image of drug dealing that springs to mind. The life sentence is clearly being used to send a message to the community involved in these things.
Having to go through great lengths to try and hide what you are doing and who you are from law enforcement sounds exactly what many involved in crimes do.
 
Having to go through great lengths to try and hide what you are doing and who you are from law enforcement sounds exactly what many involved in crimes do.

Very true, it would be rather odd for those involved in crime to not do so. Criminally stupid some might suggest.

However, my point was that the typical portrayal of drug dealing is of street vendors touting their merchandise, fighting for territory (rather than competing via price/quality), adulterating product, inflicting themselves upon the urban sprawl like a pestilence and bringing areas down.

Silk Road has dealers sitting patiently behind a computer screen awaiting an order, doing their best to describe and authenticate product, competing in a market fashion based on price, client retention and the feedback they provide. A similar model of drug dealing does happen to an extent outside of cyberspace but it is not the "quintessential image" that is portrayed.

I am not trying to justify either method, merely stating how different the set up is for Silk Road than the typical perception/image of drug dealing.
 
Fascinating case. The attempted hits lend a whole extra level of seriousness to the saga tbf, even if they were all bogus (and one seems like entrapment) but since this sentence was only concerned with the drug peddling, the life term smacks of the old order trying to scare off a new one they don't understand with draconian measures.
 
I've near the end of part 2 of the article. A part of me wished he got away with it, tbh. Maybe it's because he has a certain Walter White appeal, to him.

It just seems that someone with a better understanding of programming could easily start this up again, under a new moniker and continue it. Considering the extent the FBI, DEA, and whoever had to go to nail him, and the specifics of getting into that situation to implicate him...well, someone who is a lot more programming intuitive, and a lot more careful could perpetuate the Silk Road and continue its legacy.
 
Heroin? the non-toxic chemical? Did you know heroin is completely harmless to your body? (pretty much similar to morphine)

Governments should regulate the market, just like they've done with more dangerous drugs like alcohol, tobacco, mcdonald, etc.

Heroin is harmless?

You should take a walk through a major city and just look at the gaunt, toothless junkies mashed outta' their heads from this "harmless drug".
 
Ok, I may be wrong about this, but I was under the belief that he simply set up the market place and wasn't actually selling the drugs himself. In which case that sentence seems very harsh
 
I've near the end of part 2 of the article. A part of me wished he got away with it, tbh. Maybe it's because he has a certain Walter White appeal, to him.

It just seems that someone with a better understanding of programming could easily start this up again, under a new moniker and continue it. Considering the extent the FBI, DEA, and whoever had to go to nail him, and the specifics of getting into that situation to implicate him...well, someone who is a lot more programming intuitive, and a lot more careful could perpetuate the Silk Road and continue its legacy.
Might have already but we haven't heard about it yet. But yes the amount of resources that it took it can him were insane and if in the future more sites started popping up then you had to image this already struggling 'war' on drugs would be even more pointless.
Heroin is harmless?

You should take a walk through a major city and just look at the gaunt, toothless junkies mashed outta' their heads from this "harmless drug".
I think that's more the social/policing effects of being addicted to Heroin(I image the homeless comes from the fact the criminality placed on the drug and that Heroin not that cheap). I might be totally wrong in this but I'm pretty sure if you were rich enough and comfortable you could addicted to Heroin for years and years without any huge health problems. My point being unless you overdose, you won't actually die from the Heroin.

Didn't the guy who wrote Sherlock Holmes have a huge heroin addiction.
 
Ok, I may be wrong about this, but I was under the belief that he simply set up the market place and wasn't actually selling the drugs himself. In which case that sentence seems very harsh
Yea - basically. But he did buy off the site. And he did facilitate people buying and selling.

It's like if I build a house and others turn it into a brothel, but I still retain the lease. Would I get sentenced for that? There's the whole 'ordering a hit' aspect, but the thing is, it'd be hard to nail him for that as well. I think those charges were dropped, anyway.

Might have already but we haven't heard about it yet. But yes the amount of resources that it took it can him were insane and if in the future more sites started popping up then you had to image this already struggling 'war' on drugs would be even more pointless.

Yea - true. I didn't even think of that.

Ultimately, Ross will be turned into a cult figure and revered. His 'legacy' will be copied a dozen times over, by people a lot better at it.
 
Heroin is harmless?

You should take a walk through a major city and just look at the gaunt, toothless junkies mashed outta' their heads from this "harmless drug".

Prohibition is what makes the drug especially harmful. Addicts are forced to the fringe of society living a criminal lifestyle to support their habit. Most addicts die from overdoses caused by the unknown strength of the drug because it isn't regulated.

Other medical complications arise from sharing needles and squalid conditions that result largely from the prohibition of the drug.

It isn't harmless of course, it is highly addictive but prohibition makes things a whole lot worse.

Silk Road brought a degree of civility and quality control to the market as suppliers were rated on the quality of product. Of course the American government will not accept people living outwith the bounds of the society that they control, that was the real issue with Silk Road.
 
It's like if I build a house and others turn it into a brothel, but I still retain the lease. Would I get sentenced for that?

That's an extremely disingenuous example. Its more like buying a factory and then kitting it out with hydroponics & grow lamps before renting it out.

Prohibition is what makes the drug especially harmful. Addicts are forced to the fringe of society living a criminal lifestyle to support their habit. Most addicts die from overdoses caused by the unknown strength of the drug because it isn't regulated.

Other medical complications arise from sharing needles and squalid conditions that result largely from the prohibition of the drug.

It isn't harmless of course, it is highly addictive but prohibition makes things a whole lot worse.

Silk Road brought a degree of civility and quality control to the market as suppliers were rated on the quality of product. Of course the American government will not accept people living outwith the bounds of the society that they control, that was the real issue with Silk Road.

You only need look at the chaotic lifestyles of people on scripts for heroin replacements to see that the drugs themselves can be hugely destructive. Although our drug laws dont work imo, we should avoid the popular and (no offense) middle class liberal conclusion that its the prohibition itself that is the major problem. Poor needle hygiene & bad product are of course no good for anyone, but in the end what does for most people is simply not being able to live a normal life or hold down a job, resulting in homelessness, poor health and everything else that goes with it.
 
Although our drug laws dont work imo, we should avoid the popular and (no offense) middle class liberal conclusion that its the prohibition itself that is the major problem. Poor needle hygiene & bad product are of course no good for anyone, but in the end what does for most people is simply not being able to live a normal life or hold down a job, resulting in homelessness, poor health and everything else that goes with it.

Prohibition is a major problem if it costs the taxpayer billions and increases harm, no?

Besides you example of addicts on scripts is wide of validating your point. The vast majority of such addicts have already been criminalised and marginalised by society once they go on them. Most of them still use other drugs and remain on the fringes of society with little chance of progression once on methadone.
 
My point being unless you overdose, you won't actually die from the Heroin.

I'm pretty sure that counts as "dying from heroin" tbf....Though yes, broadly speaking most people with a comfortable lifestlye and no existing addiction problems can take or leave most Class A drugs. Just as most people who use cocaine semi-regularly (which is a lot of people) aren't going to have their septums fall out. But that's a different thing to claiming it's harmless. Heroin in particular has a high physical dependancy, which is why coming off it requires other opiates, like Morphine, because cold turkey can be wretching. And tbf, that's usually your bodies way of saying "this shit is poisoning you, bruv!"

You only need look at the chaotic lifestyles of people on scripts for heroin replacements to see that the drugs themselves can be hugely destructive. Although our drug laws dont work imo, we should avoid the popular and (no offense) middle class liberal conclusion that its the prohibition itself that is the major problem. Poor needle hygiene & bad product are of course no good for anyone, but in the end what does for most people is simply not being able to live a normal life or hold down a job, resulting in homelessness, poor health and everything else that goes with it.

There's a difference between legalisation and being able to buy a crack pipe in Londis, though. There are lots of drugs that are legal but not freely available...The middle class liberal attitude to prohibition is more about stopping the criminal aspect of drug taking (which is potentially life shattering and a waste of time) than making sure everyone can get high if they want.

That's where the war on drugs is failing IMO. 'Cos however much a drug dependency can wreck your life, a criminal record can wreck it more.
 
Last edited:
Yea - true. I didn't even think of that.

Ultimately, Ross will be turned into a cult figure and revered. His 'legacy' will be copied a dozen times over, by people a lot better at it.
I'm still a bit mixed on how I feel on the whole situation. Clearly the sentencing is insane and totally overboard. It might be normal in courts but I found it odd that prosecution brought in family members of people how had died from buying drugs of Silk Road what has that got to do with the trial at all(Then there's the argument of personal responsible, Silk Road it seems was a very hard place to find and you had to go to some lengths to get on there). But with the most liberal view point, it's hard to overlook the fact he the leader/creator of this giant drug marketplace. Which it seemed had people ranging from local small time drug dealers to giant cartels. What did the guy expect to happen in the end, although from reading stuff about this over the last few days he really didn't seem into it for the money. Not sure if that makes it better or worse.

I'm pretty sure that counts as "dying from heroin" tbf....Though yes, broadly speaking most people with a comfortable lifestlye and no existing addiction problems can take or leave most Class A drugs. Just as most people who use cocaine semi-regularly (which is a lot of people) aren't going to have their septums fall out. But that's a different thing to claiming it's totally harmless. Heroin in particular has a high physical dependancy, which is why coming off it requires other opiates, like Morphine, because cold turkey can be wretching.

To be fair I wasn't saying it's totally harmless(It's clearly not), just that from a heath perspective you'll could live a somewhat 'healthy' life being addicted to heroin. And that it's not the actual substance that leads to certain problems(Homeless,criminality)

My point on dying from an overdose(Now this will make me sound like an awful person and I know I'm sort of fighting a losing argument)is that while technically it's the result of the heroin it's really more that the person made a mistake(Normally it happens when a person stops/quits taking heroin for a long period of time and then goes back thinking they can take the same dosage they left off with).
 
Last edited:
There's a difference between legalisation and being able to buy a crack pipe in Londis, though. There are lots of drugs that are legal but not freely available...The middle class liberal attitude to prohibition is more about stopping the criminal aspect of drug taking (which is potentially life shattering and a waste of time) than making sure everyone can get high if they want.

That's where the war on drugs is failing IMO.

So what exactly are you proposing? Because the criminal black market would only be eliminated if the drugs were freely available. If access to them is restricted then there will always be a market for dealers and criminal networks.

'Cos however much a drug dependency can wreck your life, a criminal record can wreck it more.

That is total rubbish. Heroin addiction is a life changing experience that few truly recover from.
 
Besides you example of addicts on scripts is wide of validating your point. The vast majority of such addicts have already been criminalised and marginalised by society once they go on them. Most of them still use other drugs and remain on the fringes of society with little chance of progression once on methadone.

The point I was making was simply that spending all day mashed is a recipe for a chaotic life. The idea that we'd all be okay if we just get a fresh clean supply of drugs is a fantasy. As evidenced by chronic alcoholics, who are not criminalised for their drug of choice but who often lead lifestyles every bit as bad.

Besides the question I asked above is relevent to you as well. What is the alternative? Presumably you don't advocate the sale of heroin to just anyone? And if you partially restrict the sale of it, how do you avoid the criminal market springing up around it?
 
So what exactly are you proposing? Because the criminal black market would only be eliminated if the drugs were freely available. If access to them is restricted then there will always be a market for dealers and criminal networks.

The point is more that criminal convictions for users is a pointless facet of the War on Drugs, and the removal of it will result in not just a lower workload and a narrower focus, but a better chance for those who've simply been unlucky.

A black market of sorts will always exist, and will always be illegal - one exists for cigarettes still - but those with the most serious dependencies (and thus the most frequent buyers) will be the ones with better access. That'd be the point of it. Some people have already gotten heroin on the NHS.

That is total rubbish. Heroin addiction is a life changing experience that few truly recover from.

You're pushing the idea that everyone who gets addicted is a Trainspotting-like lost cause. Depending on the drug, many people can have low risk dependencies that don't affect their ability to work or contribute to society. And plenty more can use recreationally without ever developing one to begin with. On the flip side, anyone with a criminal conviction is automatically prohibited from a myriad of job opportunities.
 
Last edited:
The point is more that criminal convictions for users is a pointless facet of the War on Drugs, and the removal of it will result in not just a lower workload and a narrower focus, but a better chance for those who've simply been unlucky.

Most of the criminal convictions that come the way of heroin users are not for possession. They're for criminal acts they undertake to pay for the habit. Which is why access to the drug is the key question in this debate.

You're assuming everyone who gets addicted is a Trainspotting-like lost cause. Depending on the drug, many people can have low risk dependencies that don't affect their life, or their ability to work or contribute to society. On the flip side, anyone with a criminal conviction is automatically prohibited from a myriad of job opportunities.

I spent years working with heroin addicts in Hulme, I know the full spectrum of addictions. I also that whole low risk dependency thing is an uncommon reality popularised by literature and in truth quite rare, at least in financially deprived bits of the world like Manc.

Heroin is a truly destructive force. I worked with a local NA for a while, and those guys, despite being clean for a decade in some cases, said it still required daily willpower not to go back. Its not like quitting smoking, as I said it's truly life changing.
 
Yea - true. I didn't even think of that.

Ultimately, Ross will be turned into a cult figure and revered. His 'legacy' will be copied a dozen times over, by people a lot better at it.

There are various similar markets out there. Some of them got already closed down again. For every market that is shut down two new ones pop up.
 
Most of the criminal convictions that come the way of heroin users are not for possession. They're for criminal acts they undertake to pay for the habit. Which is why access to the drug is the key question in this debate.

A possession charge for Heroin can still carry up to 7 years and/or an unlimited fine. This is clearly neither productive, nor a deterrent.

And if supportive crime is the major factor, don't you think easier access to better heroin would reduce said incentive? As I've said, some people have already gotten it off the NHS and credited it for their turnaround (anecdotal that may be) and many police already support it. Not to mention that when the act of buying is already a crime, a second one is likely seen as a lesser deal. We could even argue about whether cheaper heroin - and thus a lowering of the need for criminal gain (which again, isn't a huge deterrant) - could be beneficial, as a set legal price would force the blackmarket to lower their trade in a lesser commodity.

Once again, this isn't about the ease of having a jolly on the brown. That strikes me as a middle class argument (albeit a Daily Mail one) ...It's about attempting to lessen the whole murky slippery slope lifestyle surrounding it.

I spent years working with heroin addicts in Hulme, I know the full spectrum of addictions. I also that whole low risk dependency thing is an uncommon reality popularised by literature and in truth quite rare, at least in financially deprived bits of the world like Manc.

I wasn't talking strictly about heroin here, tbf. Coke, MDMA and weaker opiates are admittedly easier habits than heroin. But it only takes one mistake with any of them to be flung off the job ladder for good.
 
Last edited:
The point I was making was simply that spending all day mashed is a recipe for a chaotic life. The idea that we'd all be okay if we just get a fresh clean supply of drugs is a fantasy. As evidenced by chronic alcoholics, who are not criminalised for their drug of choice but who often lead lifestyles every bit as bad.

Besides the question I asked above is relevent to you as well. What is the alternative? Presumably you don't advocate the sale of heroin to just anyone? And if you partially restrict the sale of it, how do you avoid the criminal market springing up around it?

I do advocate the legalisation of all drugs actually. Everyone can't be OK, that is the cold reality of nature. It about harm reduction.
 
A possession charge for Heroin can still carry up to 7 years and/or an unlimited fine. This is clearly neither productive, nor a deterrent.

And if supportive crime is the major factor, don't you think easier access to better heroin would reduce said incentive? As I've said, some people have already gotten it off the NHS and credited it for their turnaround (anecdotal that may be) and many police already support it. Not to mention that when the act of buying is already a crime, a second one is likely seen as a lesser deal. We could even argue about whether cheaper heroin - and thus a lowering of the need for criminal gain (which again, isn't a huge deterrant) - could be beneficial, as a set legal price would force the blackmarket to lower their trade in a lesser commodity.

Once again, this isn't about the ease of having a jolly on the brown. That strikes me as a middle class argument (albeit a Daily Mail one) ...It's about attempting to lessen the whole murky slippery slope lifestyle surrounding it.

Those examples are about how to treat existing drug users, which is a different argument and not much different to our existing opiate services. We're talking about non-users being allowed to start taking the drug, legally. That would be the only way to eliminate an illegal network of drug sales, but obviously brings with it a number of moral questions, not least the fact that we could assume the number of people using heroin would increase appreciably.

I wasn't talking strictly about heroin here, tbf. Coke, MDMA and weaker opiates are admittedly easier habits than heroin. But it only takes one mistake with any of them to be flung off the job ladder for good.

Bit of an exageration there, my drug offenses for mdma poss and cannabis with intent haven't affected me once in terms of employment. You dont even need to disclose a lot of crimes under current regs. Granted I probably couldn't work in a dispensery or be a criminal lawyer, but flung off the job ladder is a bit of a stretch, particularly the kind of jobs that reformed drug users in inner city environs are going for.

It doesn't matter where people have to buy their heroin, if they want some they'll get it. And I'd rather they got it from a responsible pharmacy.

When I was 16 I took every drug I could get my hands on, but the fact that smack was hard to get hold of meant I didn't try it then. If I could have walked into a pharm and bought a bottle, I would have done, regularly. Lots of teenagers are the same, they just explore drugs. They dont usually get hell-bent on trying smack at all costs, but if its easy to get, hey, why not? I don't see how that's a desirable state of affairs, given how addictive it is.
 
Those examples are about how to treat existing drug users, which is a different argument and not much different to our existing opiate services. We're talking about non-users being allowed to start taking the drug, legally. That would be the only way to eliminate an illegal network of drug sales, but obviously brings with it a number of moral questions, not least the fact that we could assume the number of people using heroin would increase appreciably.

It isn't the only way. There's a whole world between eliminating illegal sales wholesale with free crack in Londis and damaging the black market and creating a better environment for addicts with sensible legality.

Bit of an exageration there, my drug offenses for mdma poss and cannabis with intent haven't affected me once in terms of employment. You dont even need to disclose a lot of crimes under current regs. Granted I probably couldn't work in a dispensery or be a criminal lawyer, but flung off the job ladder is a bit of a stretch, particularly the kind of jobs that reformed drug users in inner city environs are going for.

And I know two people who've been inside for a year for coke & pill possession. One had to get his mate to apply for a loan to set up a tattoo parlour, and the other moved to Malaysia 'cos all he could get here was painting and decorating. We can all find anecdotes at either end of the scale, but the point is, if there's any discrimination, why have it at all? There's a whole spectrum of jobs between lawyer and labourer, you can't just divide all of society (every level of which has users) into one or the other.

You don't have to reduce the argument to "If you can't guarantee a world 100% free of dealers, nothing is worth it" when there are many things; some small, some large, some incrimental, some sudden, some partial, some full, that could and would help IMO.
 
Last edited:
Guess dealers would still have a market then.
Not really. Way I'd do it is, if you're already on heroin, buy it from a pharmacy. If you're not, feck off. Think it's the best way of killing that part of the black market. Not that I mind people taking heroin, there's probably a good reason everyone who takes it loves it.
 
I'm pretty sure that counts as "dying from heroin" tbf....Though yes, broadly speaking most people with a comfortable lifestlye and no existing addiction problems can take or leave most Class A drugs. Just as most people who use cocaine semi-regularly (which is a lot of people) aren't going to have their septums fall out. But that's a different thing to claiming it's harmless. Heroin in particular has a high physical dependancy, which is why coming off it requires other opiates, like Morphine, because cold turkey can be wretching. And tbf, that's usually your bodies way of saying "this shit is poisoning you, bruv!"

Opiate withdrawals are wildly exaggerated tbh. Trainspotting has a lot to answer for. They're more or less equivalent to a dose of flu. Way less severe than booze or benzo withdrawals, which can actually kill you.

Opiate substitutes are just a way for people to continue to get high in a less damaging way (i.e. instead of injecting) It's not about potential physical harm from going cold turkey.

Smack is definitely the least physically damaging of all the class As. The only real consequences are constipation and risk of overdose. The latter would be removed entirely if users knew exactly what dose they were taking (unless someone deliberately OD'd or was being an idiot - like those cretins who film themselves skulling a litre of neat vodka). Uncertainty about dose is the big issue when it comes to heroin-related deaths and a direct result of criminalisation.
 
I can understand the sentence in all honesty. The guy set up a market place where a million drug deals went on. He was held accountable for each and every one - fair enough.

What sucks is that the market place was like ebay/amazon where the sellers with the best product had the best reviews. You knew you wasn't buying stuff laced with shit that could kill you. It was safer then walking the street searching out for drugs that you had no idea was safe for you aswell as not having to deal face to face with a dodgey dealer who could set you up and kill you at any time, if they are prepared to sell heroin and crack then what else are they prepared to do.

What the court did was send a message to other people out there saying this system will not be tolerated by any means - using him as an example. Hopefully they will see the light in a few years and decriminalise drugs so that people can use drugs safely and in a mesaured way so that its easier to get them off it with goverment help in the long run.
 
What's more likely is they'll realise they can't just scare off the new world by slapping harsh punishments on it. Just how the music, film and TV worlds found they couldn't end downloading by shouting "Booo!" at it, and eventually had to fight it by adapting themselves.

Opiate withdrawals are wildly exaggerated tbh. Trainspotting has a lot to answer for. They're more or less equivalent to a dose of flu. Way less severe than booze or benzo withdrawals, which can actually kill you.

Opiate substitutes are just a way for people to continue to get high in a less damaging way (i.e. instead of injecting) It's not about potential physical harm from going cold turkey.

Smack is definitely the least physically damaging of all the class As. The only real consequences are constipation and risk of overdose. The latter would be removed entirely if users knew exactly what dose they were taking (unless someone deliberately OD'd or was being an idiot - like those cretins who film themselves skulling a litre of neat vodka). Uncertainty about dose is the big issue when it comes to heroin-related deaths and a direct result of criminalisation.

I was under the impression that uncertainly over dose was mainly down to its tolerance? Meaning heavy users took more and more, then when they went off for a while, the tolerance would fall, and that same dose would kill them? Could be wrong tho...
 
Last edited:
What's more likely is they'll realise they can't just scare off the new world by slapping harsh punishments on it. Just how the music, film and TV worlds found they couldn't end downloading by shouting "Booo!" at it, and eventually had to fight it by adapting themselves.
In way way can they adapt in this case?
 
In way way can they adapt in this case?

Well for one, treating cybercrime more like it's real world counterparts and less like terrorism in its sentencing.

Operationally? Dunno. Task Force procedure isn't my strong suit. But where there's a will there's a way.