SilkRoad 2 Taken down by Feds

[darkmule]

This is as farcically wrong as the idea that undercover officers have to tell you they're cops if you ask them.  Controlled buys and sells are part and parcel of the regular practices of the DEA and all state law enforcement agencies that enforce drug laws.  What is legally considered entrapment is to try to involve someone in criminal activity who would otherwise have had nothing to do with it, a la John K. DeLorean.

What is permissible is enticement of those who are already reasonably suspected of engaging in such activities already.

No it is not LOL. Law enforcement is allowed to lie to you all they want as long as they are not suggesting that you break the law, at which point they are committing entrapment.

Quit embarrassing yourself.  First off, read the posts you're responding to.  I said the idea that cops have to tell you they're cops if you ask is "farcically wrong."  I'm not sure how illiterate you have to be to think that means I'm agreeing with that statement.

And as for your other statement, if that were true, not a single vice operation would be legal.  The fact is, cops routinely entice people into prostitution, drug purchases, drug sales, contract killings, and other forms of enticement.  You clearly don't know the legal meaning of entrapment, which is narrow and specific.  I even gave you the specific example of John DeLorean, which is an actual example of entrapment.

But keep being wrong.  There are plenty of people in Club Fed who believe as you do.

[darkmule]

Exactly.
I'm glad someone understands common law.

Jesus.  The ignorance is overwhelming.

Most drug dealers in prison who were not caught out in the open were caught in what is called a "controlled buy," in which an undercover officer approaches the suspect, generally a known dealer, and suggests the dealer sell them drugs.  When they make the sale, they're arrested.

The evidence is routinely admitted, as anyone who has had anything to do with actual courts knows.  It routinely leads to convictions and to sentences.  It is routinely upheld on appeal.

This is what happens in reality.

[moni3z]

Exactly.
I'm glad someone understands common law.

Jesus.  The ignorance is overwhelming.

Most drug dealers in prison who were not caught out in the open were caught in what is called a "controlled buy," in which an undercover officer approaches the suspect, generally a known dealer, and suggests the dealer sell them drugs.  When they make the sale, they're arrested.

The evidence is routinely admitted, as anyone who has had anything to do with actual courts knows.  It routinely leads to convictions and to sentences.  It is routinely upheld on appeal.

This is what happens in reality.

They don't even need actual drugs anymore and can convict for conspiracy if you agree with a police informant to buy/sell/import. Happens all the time here some guy just got 25yrs for agreeing to import a bunch of invisible coke.

[RobertDJ]

Exactly.
I'm glad someone understands common law.

Jesus.  The ignorance is overwhelming.

Most drug dealers in prison who were not caught out in the open were caught in what is called a "controlled buy," in which an undercover officer approaches the suspect, generally a known dealer, and suggests the dealer sell them drugs.  When they make the sale, they're arrested.

The evidence is routinely admitted, as anyone who has had anything to do with actual courts knows.  It routinely leads to convictions and to sentences.  It is routinely upheld on appeal.

This is what happens in reality.

I think your definition of "suggests" is different from the legal definition. The under cover officer would generally ask/say things like "what do you have" or "what can you sell me" without specifically asking the dealer to sell an illegal item, however since it is the dealer's business to only sell illegal drugs he assumes the officer is referring to some kind of illegal drugs and proceeds with the sale

[QuestionAuthority]

It's all about who's selling.





And who has better security.

[inBitweTrust]

And who has better security.

Its probably a good idea to avoid any of these dealers and psychopaths.

http://www.cato.org/blog/youre-eight-times-more-likely-be-killed-police-officer-terrorist

Any law enforcement agency cannot offer to sell you any particular drug, nor any particular quantity of drugs, as doing so would be considered to be entrapment. The criminal would need to approach the law enforcement officer (posing as a drug dealer) requesting to buy the drugs, and the law enforcement officer cannot discriminate for you and not charge you with a crime if you buy drugs from him

DEA and enforcement agents lie all the time and routinely don't follow their own laws and than when its court time use Parallel construction to convince the judge and jury that the evidence doesn't come from the fruit of the poison tree.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction

They are doing this right now to Ross Ulbricht, so focusing too much on what they are suppose to do and what is illegal is mostly a waste of time. If you are a large target and embarrassing them they will come after you with any means necessary, prepare accordingly.

[RobertDJ]

It's all about who's selling.





And who has better security.

Well when you earn a doctorate degree, you are qualified to make public policy. It is doctors that develop and prescribe prescription drugs and they do so because they deem the drugs to be good for society as a whole and good for the patient taking them (the rewards outweigh the potential risks).

Your "street" (or "internet") drug dealer will not have this qualification (almost never) nor will they discriminate based on if the drug would actually (or would potentially with the rewards outweighing the risks) benefit you. 

[QuestionAuthority]

It's all about who's selling.





And who has better security.

Well when you earn a doctorate degree, you are qualified to make public policy. It is doctors that develop and prescribe prescription drugs and they do so because they deem the drugs to be good for society as a whole and good for the patient taking them (the rewards outweigh the potential risks).

Your "street" (or "internet") drug dealer will not have this qualification (almost never) nor will they discriminate based on if the drug would actually (or would potentially with the rewards outweighing the risks) benefit you. 

[RobertDJ]

It's all about who's selling.





And who has better security.

Well when you earn a doctorate degree, you are qualified to make public policy. It is doctors that develop and prescribe prescription drugs and they do so because they deem the drugs to be good for society as a whole and good for the patient taking them (the rewards outweigh the potential risks).

Your "street" (or "internet") drug dealer will not have this qualification (almost never) nor will they discriminate based on if the drug would actually (or would potentially with the rewards outweighing the risks) benefit you. 

Some prescription drugs are prescribed with the intention of poisoning the patient and may eventually end up killing the patient, but still prolonging their life and/or increasing their quality of life (for example for cancer patients or AIDS patients or patients with other similar diseases).

I also think your price comparison is somewhat unbalanced. According to my quick google search, a gram of pure coke costs ~$120 while "street quality" coke costs between $60 and $80 per gram (I am not sure what a typical "hit" of coke is, however I imagine it is less then a gram). Also the "sticker" price of oxycodone (like most/all other drugs) is not the price that is actually paid by the insurers/patients and the consumer (either themselves or via their insurance company will generally always receive a discount that is usually large

[QuestionAuthority]

[RobertDJ]

This is one person's opinion. While I do somewhat agree, doctors must take the Hippocratic Oath in order to practice as a doctor, so anything they prescribe should have some benefit to the consumer (patient).

[QuestionAuthority]

[RobertDJ]

This just adds to your previous picture of that editor saying that drug companies have transformed into marketing companies.

The book is also just one person's opinion.

I would find it hard to believe that you would say that no prescription drug is good for a patient most of the time they are taking it

[inBitweTrust]

The book is also just one person's opinion.

Some opinions are backed up by citations and research papers.

[RobertDJ]

The book is also just one person's opinion.

Some opinions are backed up by citations and research papers.

Judging by the title of the subject book, I am going to say that her opinion is based on person experience which is generally less credible then "citations" and research done by other qualified professionals

[inBitweTrust]

Judging by the title of the subject book, I am going to say that her opinion is based on person experience which is generally less credible then "citations" and research done by other qualified professionals

Why are you assuming things? Check out pages 155-157 of the book.

I would find it hard to believe that you would say that no prescription drug is good for a patient most of the time they are taking it

Why do you need to Straw man, who even hinted at this?

Do you know there are medical benefits to Schedule 1 illegal drugs as well?

All of my textbooks in grade school and Uni indicated their were absolutely no medical uses for certain types of drugs like psychedelics. Later on I realized I was being lied to :
http://www.maps.org/

[QuestionAuthority]

Judging by the title of the subject book, I am going to say that her opinion is based on person experience which is generally less credible then "citations" and research done by other qualified professionals

Why are you assuming things? Check out pages 155-157 of the book.

I would find it hard to believe that you would say that no prescription drug is good for a patient most of the time they are taking it

Why do you need to Straw man, who even hinted at this?

Do you know there are medical benefits to Schedule 1 illegal drugs as well?

All of my textbooks in grade school and Uni indicated their were absolutely no medical uses for certain types of drugs like psychedelics. Later on I realized I was being lied to :
http://www.maps.org/

Yep, that's 100% accurate. Big pharma is controlling the government. Johnson & Johnson probably doesn't want small time dealers muscling in on their turf. My mother died of cancer in the 90's. The drugs they were giving her were making her so sick that she couldn't eat and would throw up. I had her smoke a small bowl of pot everyday for the last year or so of her life and she ate like a horse and kept it down!

[inBitweTrust]

Yep, that's 100% accurate. Big pharma is controlling the government. Johnson & Johnson probably doesn't want small time dealers muscling in on their turf. My mother died of cancer in the 90's. The drugs they were giving her were making her so sick that she couldn't eat and would throw up. I had her smoke a small bowl of pot everyday for the last year or so of her life and she ate like a horse and kept it down!

Sorry, you had to go through that, it must have been very traumatic, especially knowing one of the crucial medicines she needed was illegal and you would be violently kidnapped and tortured if you were caught with it.

I have seen many people die and recover from cancer over the years. Some friends absolutely hate the pharmaceutical industry and go through a "natural" homeopathic remedy in an attempt to cure their cancer and others just go through chemo. The homeopathic remedies are just plain idiotic but I am placed in a moral dilemma as I won't convince my friends by talking about moles and  Avogadro constant and the math behind homeopathic solutions and anything I do tell them will weaken the small hope that they are healed from the placebo effect alone.

I'm not a fan of drugs, but Cannabinoids have been shown to attack cancerous cells in research and I would certainly be eating hash brownies , applying hash oil and going through targeted chemo if I ever developed cancer.

[QuestionAuthority]

Yep, that's 100% accurate. Big pharma is controlling the government. Johnson & Johnson probably doesn't want small time dealers muscling in on their turf. My mother died of cancer in the 90's. The drugs they were giving her were making her so sick that she couldn't eat and would throw up. I had her smoke a small bowl of pot everyday for the last year or so of her life and she ate like a horse and kept it down!

Sorry, you had to go through that, it must have been very traumatic, especially knowing one of the crucial medicines she needed was illegal and you would be violently kidnapped and tortured if you were caught with it.

I have seen many people die and recover from cancer over the years. Some friends absolutely hate the pharmaceutical industry and go through a "natural" homeopathic remedy in an attempt to cure their cancer and others just go through chemo. The homeopathic remedies are just plain idiotic but I am placed in a moral dilemma as I won't convince my friends by talking about moles and  Avogadro constant and the math behind homeopathic solutions and anything I do tell them will weaken the small hope that they are healed from the placebo effect alone.

I'm not a fan of drugs, but Cannabinoids have been shown to attack cancerous cells in research and I would certainly be eating hash brownies , applying hash oil and going through targeted chemo if I ever developed cancer.

It sucks seeing someone you love die of cancer. It was funny to see my old gray haired mother huffing on a bong. lol Some of the best conversations we had about my childhood were during that last year when she was high. She hated the meds she was on and thought about homeopathic alternatives but, being a very practical woman, told us she thought they were all bullshit (her words).

Yeah, it's crazy to keep a drug from people that works in the name of protecting children and then dope kids up on Ritalin until they sit in a corner all day and play with an old shoe (a friends 11 yo kid would just play with a shoe for hours sitting on the floor).

[RobertDJ]

Judging by the title of the subject book, I am going to say that her opinion is based on person experience which is generally less credible then "citations" and research done by other qualified professionals

Why are you assuming things? Check out pages 155-157 of the book.

I would find it hard to believe that you would say that no prescription drug is good for a patient most of the time they are taking it

Why do you need to Straw man, who even hinted at this?

Do you know there are medical benefits to Schedule 1 illegal drugs as well?

All of my textbooks in grade school and Uni indicated their were absolutely no medical uses for certain types of drugs like psychedelics. Later on I realized I was being lied to :
http://www.maps.org/

Yep, that's 100% accurate. Big pharma is controlling the government. Johnson & Johnson probably doesn't want small time dealers muscling in on their turf. My mother died of cancer in the 90's. The drugs they were giving her were making her so sick that she couldn't eat and would throw up. I had her smoke a small bowl of pot everyday for the last year or so of her life and she ate like a horse and kept it down!

I am sorry for your loss. I would also think it would be funny to see a grandmother smoking from a bong (hopefully you were able to share a few good experiences from doing this). I would say that she would probably have been prescribed medical marijuana today.

Would you agree that the drugs that were given to her were at least designed to treat the cancer and would have potentially given her a greater chance of beating it then if she had not taken any drugs? Even though the drugs technically did kill her do you think the cancer would have killed her sooner if it were not for the drugs?

I do think that it is very sad that the medical profession essentially needs to resort to poisoning people with cancer to attempt to fight it. It just shows how horrible that cancer is