RE: Did Ross Ulbricht Really Deserve a Double Life Sentence?
I do have to say one thing about Steemit. You never know what you're going to run across for a topic. :)
I think I agree with the sentiments here in the comment section that this is about much more than the drugs or other illicit dealings that may or may not have occurred. I think bitcoin and it's use as a currency is definitely a part of it, as well as a desire to make an example.
And I also agree that a double life sentence is pretty extreme for someone who only did some dealing, and otherwise was a website owner.
All that said, all of this was operating illegally at the time (thus the dark web, and thus still the dark web now), and while he might not be able to be held accountable for all that went on, depending on the legality of whatever liability clauses that might have existed, if he doesn't put up the site, he has no issues whatsoever.
While the revenue side of it is pretty large, there is a difference, I'm sure, between the amount of personnel required to run Silk Road and that of Amazon. Thus more layers of bureaucracy and more people on lower levels to fault. And while the cyanide incident is tragic, and someone should be held accountable, Amazon wasn't specifically set up to sell cyanide. The Silk Road had a specific purpose. So, there's also intent involved, I'm sure.
At any rate, I'm not really taking sides here, either way, and for the most part, I'm saying the time doesn't fit the crime, but I can understand in a less sinister way why the US government might feel he deserves more jail time, trumped charges and tampered evidence aside.
That kind of thing is probably the biggest issue here. The fact that the law is apparently no longer sacrosanct, but that there needs to be doctoring or fabrications, and that it's okay because Ulbricht is a "bad guy."
I agree with pretty much everything you have said here. Ross operated on the dark web because he knew the products being sold were illegal, but he was and is very anti-government and pro legalisation of drugs.
He's an interesting character if you go through all the material out there about his life.
The thing that I found most concerning about his case was the level of corruption and evidence tampering. If you listen to the story you'll hear about the FBI agent who was actually caught stealing Bitcoin from Ross. He's the guy that tampered with evidence before getting caught and yet the court still took his testimony as legit.
It's an incredible story.
Yeah, I certainly have little love lost for any of the federal enforcement agencies. I'm sure there are plenty of good people there, but they unfortunately seem to get overshadowed by the criminals in their ranks, or by those with political/power agendas. It's an upside down world we live in.
I sympathize with the anti-government sentiment. The federal government is way too large, and exceeds its constitutional authority regularly, there doesn't seem to be any true recourse for it, and meanwhile, we the people just keep living our lives. I can see why people might want to do things they feel should be legal, and then do them when there's been no movement to change the law.
However, all that seems to do is get you thrown into jail. The law is the law, and its coupled with might makes right. And the might is with the federal government bar none. Until there's some kind of major push back, counter balance or force that is the size of the full weight of the federal government, the very sad reality is, you need to find ways to fight it that won't put you away for double life sentences, or worse.
As far as legalizing drugs go, or better said, removing the illegality of it, there's quite a few things that doing so would seem to alleviate. My question is, are we ready to pay the societal price that will come? Prohibition wasn't the solution for alcohol, but now tax dollars or insurance dollars go to helping those with drinking problems or health problems brought on by excessive drinking.
We already have monies being allocated for drug treatment and health issues, but not on the magnitude it will end up being when legalization occurs. Will we either be willing to pay out the amount in taxes, insurance, and whatever monetary means to try to help all of those who will eventually end up addicted and/or dying from it, or are we going to stand back and let them die. Let them pay the consequences. An attitude where it's legal, sure, but you're still responsible and accountable for what you do.
Either way is going to take a toll.
I'm personally of a mind that we should all be responsible and accountable. If we were, and were left to be so, then it wouldn't really matter if something were legal or not. People would go about their business, making their own messes and cleaning it up, rather than finding themselves at the mercy of a society wherein some want to help clean up the mess, but don't have the means themselves to do it, so everyone has to. Or those folks that purport to want to help, really only want to make sure that those who don't feel it's their obligation to help, do it anyway.
The war on drugs currently costs America somewhere in the order of $1 trillion per year. I’m sure some of that could be used to treat those who abuse and become addicted to drugs.
America also has the one of the highest imprisonment rates in the world. And the majority of those people are on drugs charges. All of a sudden many of the privatised prisons won’t be needed any more.
The number of problems that would go away with the legalisation of drugs is insane. The national debt would become much more comfortable to manage as well.
I don't need to contradict you—there's certainly been billions and billions spent on the war on drugs in this country, but the closest I can come to the $1 trillion amount you quote is over a 41 year period from 1971-2012. From what I can find, the latest annual cost is more like $78.5 billion, which includes healthcare, addiction treatment and criminal justice/law enforcement. That comes from a revised statement in March, 2018 from the National Institute on Drug Abuse. The $1 trillion quote comes from an article on CNN.
That's still a lot of money. And yes, we do have the highest incarceration rate according to the stats I can find, and it does appear that a significant part of that is drug related, though there appears to be a discrepancy of just how high the percentage is.
Regardless, there is a lot of money, time and effort being spent on drug enforcement, drug treatment and drug related health care. And those figures don't really tell the full tale, because there's affects on private insurance, as well, along with costs that employers incur for drug tests (which admittedly might continue anyway if drug laws were repealed), and any of a number of associative costs that are related or indirectly related.
There is, too, a toll on society, one that's harder to measure in dollars and cents, but can probably be found by piecing different data points together.
Where I wanted to go with my previous comment is this: regardless of whether or not drugs are legal, there is a cost. And it's not just in dollars. And my concern is, though I have no way of knowing how much, that if drugs were legal, without any other change in the way people are or the way society is, that the numbers who would use who are for whatever reason impeded from it now because it's illegal, would rise. How much, how quickly, and so forth, I don't know how to predict. It just stands to reason that if something that was illegal becomes legal, more folks are going to do it because there's nothing to stop them, other than some moral code that I'm afraid has eroded enough in our country that it wouldn't be much of a determent.
So, what I'm trying to point out is, for everything that might be solved by legalizing it, new problems and issues crop up, and new impacts on society from dollars to costs that are difficult to quantify arise.
I think the way things are happening now, where individual states have been legalizing marijuana for medicinal and/or recreational purposes is about the best way (providing it's considered a best way) to go about it. Even though the federal law prohibits its use, I don't see a lot of federal law enforcement running around Oregon shutting down shops or fining state government. I would imagine it's similar in other states. The feds here seem more intent on protecting government land so it can turn around and burn senselessly than they are in enforcing federal drug laws.
I really think you and I are on the same track here. I guess I'm just trying to point out pitfalls. It's taken us 47 years now to get to where we're at, and it's not going to be resolved overnight with the flick of a presidential ball point pen, or the rubber stamp of Congressional approval.
It's been proven time and again that any industry that falls under the taxation and regulation of government has a more difficult time staying in business and thriving than it would if there were no government oversight or taxing. Which I would say would extend to all of the drug trade were the laws repealed. But in such a case, the war would shift away from the ATF to the IRS and other regulatory agencies. That in and of itself opens up a whole other can of worms. :)
We're definitely on the same page. I must have misheard the $1 trillion figure, it was mentioned on a podcast that I was listening to about the drug war.
I'm not sure if we'd see an increase in drug usage with legalisation. It's already very easy to get your hands on them, so legalising them probably won't cause a big spike in usage. It's possible that you'd simply see a loss of interest in them since they'd become an accepted thing all of a sudden.
I actually find it interesting that governments aren't more interested in legalising them, think of the taxes they could earn! The Australian government takes huge taxes from alcohol sales, beer and wine in Australia is insanely expensive as a result.
I would guess that through legalisation, the problems we see would be reduced. There would be more created for sure, but the cost to our nations would be substantially less.
It is a complex topic, but for what it costs I'm amazed that the US and Australia aren't doing more to solve these problems.
In my opinion, I think there would be a slight increase in usage mainly because of the media coverage there would be around illict drugs being legalised, after a while I think it would eventually be stabilisation. If the illict drugs were legalised than they would have to cut down on law enforcement since there wouldn't be as much crime going on anymore. 'Drug dealers' would be turned into business man, and layed off law enforced would be able to find jobs in a new market because they most likely have a good deal of knowledge about the substances and on top of that medical professionals would be able to do proper research.
There would definitely be a cut in costs regardless of the outcome. And at the end of the day it should be the individuals choice as to what they do with their body.