Silk Road's Leader Paid a Doctor To Help Keep Customers Safe 110
An anonymous reader writes: Two years after the fall of Silk Road, new facts about the saga are still emerging all the time. The latest revelation is that Dread Pirate Roberts, the leader of Silk Road, paid a doctor $500 per week to offer public and private counseling to customers of the site. DoctorX, also known as Dr. Fernando Caudevilla, became famous for his free work on the site. The fact that he was eventually paid a salary is being used by lawyers for Ross Ulbricht to argue that Silk Road emphasized harm reduction and was, on the whole, a huge improvement in safety for drug users.
America's War On Drugs is a Failure (Score:5, Insightful)
Billions of taxpayer dollars every year that could be allocated to education, repairing roads/bridges and other infrastructure (rail, anyone?) are instead spent on keeping substances illegal and locking up addicts.
Millions of dollars worth of taxpayers' legitimate cash and bank account balances are stolen by the government every year through nebulous civil forfeiture laws. If you get pulled over on your way home from Las Vegas and you have a few thousand bucks cash in your car, consider that money gone, and probably your car too, all owned by the government now as part of the War on Drugs. They don't have to prove you guilty of any crime, or even accuse you of a crime!
How many people, innocent or guilty, have been outright executed by police since the 70s using "OMG illegal narcotics" as a justification? How many tens of thousands of American citizens are in prison right now because they were caught carrying a plant that grows in the ground?
Wake the fuck up and let's put an end to this nonsense.
Re:America's War On Drugs is a Failure (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Those in power have banded together against their voters....
Re:America's War On Drugs is a Failure (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
> But the problem is that picking a good president is like putting a good head on a rotting fish. It's not going to do the job by itself.
This. We would do better to pick every single one of their positions by lot
Re: (Score:2)
Yup. And it's not just true for the President. My city recently had a primary for mayor. The 3 choices were the current mayor, with a history of raising taxes and spending on "projects" while neglecting failing infrastructure, a crazy guy who doesn't even LIVE in the city, and some guy nobody's ever heard of. The crazy guy got eliminated, so the big race will be between the status quo and the no-name guy. I don't think no-name has a chance.
Re: (Score:2)
ROTFLMAO. I think it is both hilarious and sad when people talk about how they "put" someone in office as if the choice was an open one. That ignores the fact that your choices were already dwindled down to almost nothing up front. When you vote for a politician these days you pretty much have a choice of which half of the shit sandwich you want. I don't really call that freedom of choice myself. I can think of 100 people off the top of my head that would make a better president than Obama and Bush, but they were never an option.
Moreover, it's even less of a choice for those who don't believe there should be a President at all. The American government system can only grow bigger, never smaller, so those who believe it has gotten too large are out of luck. To those people even if you have a good candidate (not that that would ever happen) you're just running a good candidate for a bad office.
Re: (Score:3)
The fear of drugs was implanted so deep in our societies that anyone willing to call out the WoD on it's uselessness might as well claim he fiddles little children's weewees at night, he might generate a lighter backlash with this cla
Re: (Score:2)
anyone willing to call out the WoD on it's uselessness might as well claim he fiddles little children's weewees at night, he might generate a lighter backlash with this claim.
No politician in our PC-heavy climate would even dare to think about it.
It's not 1986 anymore and the "PC-heavy climate" is entirely in your head.
http://www.westword.com/news/senate-medical-marijuana-bill-has-big-name-support-but-not-from-colorado-6594905
Re: (Score:3)
Oh, I think one [burlingtonfreepress.com] might at least. It is discussed quite openly in Vermont [mpp.org], and I seem to recall other states have legalized it as well. This suggests to me that more that one politician has been brave enough to speak truthfully on the subject.
Frankly I always knew that weed would be legalized and Windows would finally be recognized as the garbage it is by most qualified people in technology. I'm just surprised it has taken the form
Re: (Score:2)
This suggests to me that more that one politician has been brave enough to speak truthfully on the subject.
Legalization in the western states did not occur through politicians. It occurred through the referendum process, which few (any?) eastern states have. The politicians were mostly opposed to legalization. They couldn't afford the wrath of the police and prison guard unions.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You can't end the War on drugs, any more than you can end the IRS, too many other industries require it now.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I don't know. We did get rid of prohibition. Granted, alcohol was a vastly more accepted drug at the time, but I think what is required is simply what is happening now: people waking up to the issue of the War on Drugs and taking action to get things decriminalized.
I'm not a big fan of drugs. Far from it. Still, these people need to be getting treatment and not jail time.
Drugs should be legal, controlled, and taxed. That tax money should go towards helping to eradicate dependence on drugs and not go to
Re: (Score:3)
Or, what with it being legal and all, they could just get their drugs! Most of the drug using population doesn't need rehab, and many others need it because they can't get enough because it is so expensive (e.g. Heroin addicts.)
I know. I know. You didn't say that! Perhaps you didn't mean to imply it either, I don't know. It seems like many people here think that a person who does drugs automat
Re: (Score:2)
I used to think that way, but I don't think anymore that this would be a good idea. There are certain drugs that are illegal for a damn good reason. That shit IS deadly. Not because it's cut, not because it's made in a less than perfect process, but because the shit simply is dangerous. Crack being one, and Croc sure being the latest addition to the fold of the horrible few.
Seriously, compared to that shit, heroin is a safe and sane drug. Which isn't so far from truth, though I'd not consider pumping that s
Re: (Score:3)
That is a ridiculous thing to say. While I agree with you that Meth, for example, is a horrible drug and should be avoided, that continues to be true regardless of legality. Keeping it illegal does essentially nothing to stop people from doing it, and people who don't smoke it are very unlikely to say "Hey, I really like the way that guys teeth are rotted o
Re: (Score:2)
That is a ridiculous thing to say. While I agree with you that Meth, for example, is a horrible drug and should be avoided, that continues to be true regardless of legality. Keeping it illegal does essentially nothing to stop people from doing it, and people who don't smoke it are very unlikely to say "Hey, I really like the way that guys teeth are rotted out! I think I'll try me some of that there Meth! if it becomes legal.
Wrong as rain, Zeke.
An acquaintance of mine, who has a past relationship with smoking the meth and the cocaine, has given everything up except cigarettes and whiskey.
He would love to give up the cigs, and live as long as possible, healthily enough to enjoy the whiskey.
Harder to Get.
Re: (Score:2)
I can only assume your name is Zeke, and you are talking to yourself.
It seems like he gave all his Meth to you, because your post makes as much sense as a would your typical Meth-head right after they take a big blast.
Have a nice day Zeke!
Re: (Score:2)
Making things illegal makes them more difficult to to acquire.
A person wishing to be shed of a chemical romance benefits from the difficulty. No?
Re: (Score:2)
I think it would be far more sensible to ensure that more interesting and less damaging alternatives are legal. If there's legal heroin from a stable and clean production, there's no need for desomorphine made in less than optimal circumstances with more toxic junk than active substance in the mix.
Pretty much any "horrible" drug has a less dangerous and sometimes even better working alternative, with the "horrible" version only having a market because the cleaner version is either not available or more expe
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm with you, if, and only if, these people get that information (and I mean information, not the usual scaremongering drugs-are-baaaaad bullshit) to make an informed decision AND I don't get to pay for it if they make a wrong one.
That provided, I'm with you. All the way.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually Crock is making his point for him. Do you know what the really fucking saddest thing about Crock is? Seriously.... do you know?
"Crock" would be safer than most other opiates if it was pharmaceutical grade, because it causes LESS REPIRATORY DISTRESS.
Yes, "Crock" the nasty limb destroying hell on earth drug is itself.... the perfect example of why making drugs illegal doesn't work and causes more problems. Add to this that drug prohibition has failed to change addiction rates and you have....the same
Re: (Score:2)
To make myself clear, as you suspected, I don't think all people taking drugs need to go into rehab. I certainly don't need alcohol rehab for imbibing maybe a six pack a week or so.
However, there are a number of drugs where you quickly develop both tolerance to it and also a strong addiction. That's a combination that makes for someone who will start to quickly drain their available cash resources to maintain their habit. That's when drug use becomes pathological. Even if it doesn't kill you or melt yo
Re: (Score:2)
Again, you aren't grasping this concept. Legality, done right, will cause the cost to plummet. You'll have no more crime from the heroin user than you do the Alcoholic (less so actually, since they aren't piss drunk a
Re: (Score:2)
You appear to be under the delusion that you do have any sort of absolute personal freedom of the kind you espouse. In minor matters, you do, as long as your actions affect no one else. In major matters, that is more difficult.
Personally, I feel that drug use is a minor matter, which is made into a major one by the War on Drugs.
However, there are certainly scenarios where that use can affect others. Lower prices or not, if you do happen to over-use to the point you have trouble maintaining a job, and you
Re: (Score:2)
Alcohol is a far more "acceptable" drug than, say, pot. Because it has a negative side effect. You get a hangover. So you "pay" for having a buzz. With pot, this ain't the case.
Re: (Score:2)
Well under the current system your tax dollar is paying the police and jail systems to catch and lock up druggies, and if those druggies just continue to take drugs you will be paying for an endless cycle of them being released and jailed again shortly after. It's very expensive to keep someone locked up in jail.
The idea is that if drugs were legalized, the sale of them would be taxed and the revenue from those taxes would pay for rehab and education...
Re: (Score:2)
The idea is that if drugs were legalized, the sale of them would be taxed and the revenue from those taxes would pay for rehab and education...
They only become 'his' tax dollars when he's using himself. Kick ass.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is that politicians aren't necessarily in the business of common sense, and police departments need their revenue, just like any other third world country. (And no, I'm not saying the US is a third world country, just that our police departments behave like one. Though third world countries may even be a little more honest, because they don't hide the fact that they need bribes to keep working.)
Remember how Chuck Schumer ordered the DOJ to seize their domain name, and was royally pissed when he
Re: (Score:2)
That's not what Democrats think about gun control, 100% success is no more expected than with any other endeavor.
Really? So why do they even bother if they know that it's not possible?
Re: America's War On Drugs is a Failure (Score:4, Insightful)
Its not possible to stop murder. So we should get rid of the laws against it, why bother if it's not possible?
Just because perfection can't be achieved doesn't mean something isn't worth doing.
Re: (Score:2)
ts not possible to stop murder. So we should get rid of the laws against it, why bother if it's not possible?
Let me rephrase that question: What are they attempting to accomplish?
Re: America's War On Drugs is a Failure (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
However a murderer has actually harmed someone in a way that denies him his rights. Hardly a realistic comparison. I would compare it more, to having sex with a man behind closed doors. Seems more appropriate of a comparison to me given the lack of a victim in the simple ownership or posession of an object or substance.
In fact, I would even say, his right to own or put what he wants in his body is likely on the level of his religion.
Re: (Score:2)
Those are services, if you can't tell the difference between making laws to threaten people with punishment if they don't do what you want and providing a service to people to help those who want it....then i don't know what more I can explain that would be helpful.
Re: (Score:2)
Well actually its because such benefits are assumed rather than always in existance. The real problem comes when this is assumed of policies, like the drug laws, which don't even achieve a small portion of their goals (unless you assume those goals are to create middle class jobs in prison and probation systems, in which case, it succeeds like gangbusters)
In fact, its quite possible for these programs to not have any benefits at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Huh? What are you talking about, it's working great! We can incarcerate people and use them for forced labour, serving as a money maker for the prison complex and cheap labor too. We protect the interests of pharma corporations who'd have to compete with drugs that actually DO work against various ailments, maybe even cure them instead of treating them (which is a serious dent in the profit, it's far more profitable to treat than to cure) but have expired patents and could be pumped out cheaply, or even be
Re: (Score:2)
So what was the Dread Pirate Roberts 'SIC' really doing, keeping his addicts alive so that they could keep buying very addictive and very expensive drugs funded by the crimes drug addicts often commit. So good or evil hmmm, fucking as evil as hell and it is the thought that counts in this case. This is definitely the prosecution should really hammer home, keeping addicts going and keeping the drug fueled crime going. Less addictive drugs, sure no problem, doing this with really addictive dangerous drugs, r
Re: (Score:2)
Except for the fact that they were already addicts before they became customers, and that the alternative was that they do what exactly? Tell them to go elsewhere to someone who wouldn't even do that much?
The only evil here is the people who make laws out of ignorance. Idiots who think drug laws work are the true evil and the ones responsible for the entire mess. Its sad that we have to allow prohibitionists to share the clean air and sunshine that the good people of the world enjoy.
They are the ONLY ones t
Re: (Score:2)
maybe even cure them instead of treating them (which is a serious dent in the profit, it's far more profitable to treat than to cure)
This is where you jump the shark. I guess vaccines make people sick as well, huh?
Re: (Score:2)
If you're carrying substantial cash back from Vegas: a) Good for you! Most of us do not, hence the billion dollar casinos and the million dollar light bills keeping that outfit lit up at night. b) If you have enough currency on you to make a civil servant drool, do not smoke skunk weed in the car. With a tail light out. And cocaine sequestered in the spare.
I remember laughing at my girlfriend who was yelling at the television during the so
It depends on how you measure failure (Score:4, Insightful)
Then there's our whole private prison thing. As always, follow the money.
Re: (Score:2)
Legalizing drugs wouldn't automatically decrease the law enforcement budget. Drugs being illegal actually costs money, and legalizing them would not decrease the available budget. If anything, legalized drugs would increase the available budget as legal drugs would be taxed in the same way tobacco/alcohol are.
The cops would just need to find something else to do, and there is plenty of other non drug related crime that they could investigate. Plenty of crimes get ignored by the police these days because the
Re: (Score:2)
First get rid of the Patriot act, and use that money for roads. Then look at other waste. GWB was hysteric, and reacted out of fear. Fear, because he could not understand what was going on. He used Cheney as the brains, and it was Cheney who was the president behind the president.
DoctorX? (Score:2)
Is that a new Mega Man boss?
Re: (Score:2)
Most likely just Wily with another silly disguise.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm confused. (Score:1)
But wasn't the defense claiming that Mark Karpeles was running the site at this point? Why should that get Ulbricht leniency if he wasn't running the site at that point? Does this mean his defense has finally given up on that ridiculous conspiracy theory?
Re: (Score:1)
Sure, he's allowed to throw all the shit at the wall he wants to see what sticks. I'm simply being amused at him both trying to claim to not have run the site during this period but then also try to claim credit for actions he supposedly couldn't have been responsible for.
Re: (Score:3)
A) The law was broken.
B) The law was broken by the defendant.
C) The law was broken in this country.
The defendant can say, the law doesn't cover the alleged act, and even if it did, the defendant wasn't the one who did it. Furthermore, the defendant wasn't even in the country at that time, so it doesn't matt
Re: (Score:2)
You're allowed to defend using multiple strategies even if they're logically contradictory.
True, but putting logically contradictory theories as defenses to a crime doesn't usually play well with juries.
Dr Feelgood (Score:2, Funny)
Me: "Dr Boombatz, it hurts when I do this..."
Dr Vinnie Boombatz: "Here's a scrip for Oxycontin. Go in peace, my son."
Re: (Score:1)
Although when you start reading some sites, those Veterans who are restricted to 4x5mg daily are in greater need. They are some who buy from the black market. One of the problems they've found is that some Oxy is mixed with plastics to slow uptake, so they tend to take more than prescribed for pain relief, consequently run out before they can get more on prescription. Coming down is not fun for them and so they seek alt. sources.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Govt Doesn't Care About User Safety (Score:5, Informative)
The "war on drugs" results in increased violence which increases the risk for everyone, not just the drug users. If the government was really concerned about the safety of drug users they could legalize and regulate everything and make it much safer. So far that hasn't happened.
I'm impressed that Dread Pirate Roberts paid a doctor to counsel people, I just don't think that the government will be.
Here in Canada the federal government tried to shut down a safe injection site in Vancouver. The site operated by the provincial government provided IV drug users with a safe place to shoot up. Everything need, except the drugs, was available there.. There were nurses present to offer help and advice, and to deal with any overdoses. The end result was (provably) fewer deaths among IV drug users. That made no difference to the federal government, they still wanted to shut the site down. Fortunately when they took the province to court, they lost - since there was proof of fewer deaths it was considered a health care issue, which is completely up to the province
Re: (Score:1)
The US federal government set up blowers on top of low-rent housing to poison the residents. FUCK THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT!
http://news.yahoo.com/secret-cold-war-tests-st-louis-raise-concerns-214608828.html
Re: (Score:2)
Wasn't one of their defenses that after the "safe injection site" opened up, both legal and illegal sales of those specific drugs went down?
Once again: (Score:5, Insightful)
95% of the horrible things caused by "drugs" are in fact caused by the drug warriors turning a medical problem (addictive personality, self-medication for other problems) into a criminal problem. See also: prostitution.
When you declare it - whatever it is - "illegal" you strip anyone who touches it from the protection of the legitimate legal/medical system. Especially if you have something essentially harmless like pot (Oh noes, a poor person might smoke a doob and be happy with their life for a night) that a lot of people will want to try, the result is that you'll eventually reach a critical density of people in areas who can't access the legal/medical system and as a result, society there goes to hell in a handbasket.
Basically no matter how horrible the drug is - seriously, fuck meth - prohibitionism is guaranteed to make matters worse. It doesn't resolve the fundamental problem that most drugs are medically bad for you (Unless you're stupid enough to buy into "just say no!" which works about as well as the other well known form of abstinence-only education). It prevents anyone/everyone involved from having access to a legitimate, peaceful legal system to resolve disputes. It prevents government regulation regarding quality control. The moralizing/stigmatization actively prevents people with a medical issue from seeking medical assistance. If you want to reduce the harm done to society by drugs, you couldn't get much further from a useful solution than prohibition.
But on the other hand, prohibitionism *does* go straight to the only honest impulse in all of religious fundamentalism: The hatred of anyone who seeks happiness in this life, doubly so if they are poor.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Once again: (Score:5, Insightful)
Most voters are idiots. Easily swayed by the fear of the unknown and a rather diffuse urge to "protect their children", of anything and nothing. Control their children would be more apt, in most cases, but I don't even want to go there.
People are afraid of change in their life, and they are afraid of things (and people) they do not know. The more conservative and the less contact wanted with "the others", the more fear.
Alcohol was something they knew. And they knew that it ain't bad. They even had a drink or two themselves and did they die from it? No. Of course not. Did they go insane? No, again, of course not. And so the support for the ban was very low outside the overzealous self-proclaimed warriors of moral. It was even "cool" to break that law.
Not just among teenagers.
As you correctly identified, the main reason for the fear of drugs (and yes, I mean fear, it's not just rejection, it is fear) is that drugs are "the unknown", and that we've been told time and again that drugs are bad, bad, bad things. It doesn't have to be as hilarious as "Reefer Madness", but we've all had our share of "drug awareness".
Do you think it's a coincidence that the discussion of the legalization of Marijuana happens now that the "generation of love", the Hippies, are about to reach the age that just so happens to be about the age most top level politicians are in? The generation of politicians that is now in power is the same generation that smoked pot heavily during their teen years, and they learned that it's not really as their parents taught them, that it's not leading to the fall of humanity and civilization.
In other words, we'll probably see the legalization of Ecstacy around 2030.
Re: (Score:2)
From that paragon of information known to be false, but is believed by the editors to be true, regardless of the actual facts:
This is the list of Schedule I drugs as defined by the United States Controlled Substances Act.[1] The following findings are required for drugs to be placed in this schedule:[2]
1) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
2) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
3) There is a lack of accepted safety
Meh (Score:2)
But the thing is, what do you do with the massive underclass we have? They're uneducated and likely to stay that way because t
He also paid for the opposite. (Score:2)