[tomp]

I too think he is guilty.

Guilty of breaking non-sense, victim-less laws. Laws that restrict usage of non-addictive mind-altering substances that are much less harmful than other, legal drugs (alcohol, tobacco, medical drugs). Laws that shouldn't even be on the books! Laws that cause millions of dollars of damage and thousands of deaths each year. Laws that power organized crime.

The drug laws.

I totally support him, and I hope he comes out a free man, albeit his business will probably be ruined.

[nhstanley]

> ...non-addictive...

I agree with your general point, but SR was being used for all kinds of things including selling Cocaine and Heroin (and also for not selling drugs but services). Those are very addictive drugs by almost any definition. Fine if you want to argue they are less harmful than, say, alcohol, but they are definitely addictive. Do not allow your point to be weakened by stating something that is clearly incorrect.

[MacsHeadroom]

Cocaine is very pleasurable, but it's hardly as addictive as heroine or (the legal drug) alcohol.

[mikeyouse]

> Cocaine is very pleasurable, but it's hardly as addictive as heroine or (the legal drug) alcohol.

Not really true;

http://i.imgur.com/sBQn1Hr.gif

[Evolved]

Not that I necessarily doubt the veracity of this claim but you should probably point to a better looking graphic than that. Where did you even find it?

[mikeyouse]

Agreed, it's a shitty chart, but it's from a study The Lancet performed;

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-67...

Wiki actually sums it up pretty well;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_dependence#Dependence...

[JoeAltmaier]

As the comic says, he can't see the difference between using cocaine, and taking everything you own to the back yard and burning it then giving your house away.

[mycroft-holmes]

> Cocaine and Heroin (and also for not selling drugs but services). Those are very addictive drugs by almost any definition.

I've tried cocaine myself on two occasions. Not addictive whatsoever.

[jahnu]

Addiction isn't that simple. Would you argue that nicotine is not addictive? I've tried several tobacco products and am not addicted but that does not prove that nicotine does not have addictive properties. I drink alcohol and when it's not available I don't miss it. Is it more or less addictive than tobacco?

There is a nice description of the risk of cocaine dependence on Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cocaine_dependence

[innguest]

Drugs aren't addictive. People are either more or less prone to forming habits around activities depending on their own brain structure and chemistry.

No drug is addictive. Addiction is a weasel word to try and shift the blame of habit forming away from the person and onto the activity.

Is the beach fun? Some people find it fun, they go as much as possible. I don't find it fun. Can we then say "well, fun is not that simple. would you argue hiking is not fun? I've tried hiking and I don't hike all the time but that does not prove hiking does not have fun properties. I go to the beach and when it's not available I don't miss it. Is the beach more or less fun than hiking?"?

No drug is addictive just as no activity is fun. A person will feel fun or will form a habit around an activity depending on their predisposition to do so, based on brain chemistry.

Cocaine only manages to convert 4% of the people that try it. That means only 4% of people are prone to forming habits around Cocaine. What percentage of people are prone to forming habits around watching sports? Should watching sports be considered addictive and become illegal, if more than 4% of people form habits around it?

[davvolun]

Fair enough, I always go back to something a high school teacher mentioned when these types of arguments come up. Martin Luther King Jr. broke the law to make a point, to fight injustice, to "stick it to the man." But MLK unequivocally and publicly broke those laws; he made the statement 'these are unjust laws and they need to be changed' and suffered the punishment for breaking those laws, as determined by a court of law, mitigated by public outcry. Illegally copying and selling movies because you think copyright law is bullshit, as an example, is not living up to MLK's method, it's having your cake and eating it too. You think a law is unjust, fight the law, don't break it and try to get away with it. That makes you, at best, little better than those in organized crime. And, at the end of the day, if you've made tons of money off of the crime, and you stand to make more if the law is repealed, it really waters down your moral/ethical argument.

[scottjad]

Apparently MLK did believe that:

> "In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law."

You claim:

> You think a law is unjust, fight the law, don't break it and try to get away with it.

So you and MLK are claiming that a non-Jew in Nazi Germany who violates legislation by helping a Jew is morally culpable unless they do it publicly?

Seems pretty questionable, and I even agree with the strict Kantian maxim of not lying to the murderer at the door!

Perhaps you and MLK are confusing a strategy with morality. Perhaps it is strategically valuable to violate unjust legislation openly and suffer the consequences. That shouldn't mean that it is morally wrong to violate them in secret.

To me, it seems like there are two claims that are being tied together unnecessarily. 1) one has no obligation to obey unjust legislation 2) one has an obligation to disobey it openly to bring public awareness of the unjustness and increase likelihood of reform.

To me, you're just as culpable for not doing #2 whether or not you do #1. In other words, if you're morally culpable for not violating unjust legislation in public, then you bear that culpability whether or not you violate the legislation in private or not, and violating unjust legislation in private entails no culpability on its own.

[edit: I completely rewrote when I realized MLK really did say that]

[hncomplete]

SR also sold identity theft kits, hacking tools and such.

It was not just a place of victimless crime. It would be nice if just ONE of you DPR-loving sociopaths would be honest enough to admit this.

[etherael]

Compared with the crimes of the entity actually mounting the prosecution, everything he was alleged to have done is at worst a misdemeanor.

But you will never get a sociopathic state worshiping authoritarian to admit they don't have the moral high ground. Letalone that their treasured institutions are practically identical to the terrorist organisations that they say they exist to protect the innocent from.

[hahainternet]

> you will never get a sociopathic state worshiping authoritarian to admit they don't have the moral high ground

If you're willing to post this level of stupidity then just come out with "OBAMA IS HITLER" without mincing words so we can tell you're deluded and ignore your posts.

[tripzilch]

SR also sold identity theft kits, hacking tools and such.

(I agree with "hncomplete"'s point, minus the "sociopath" remark)

[tomp]

When he'll be charged of that and proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt, and when the only money taken from him will be what he earned with the above activities, I'll completely support the charges/convictions.

[hahainternet]

> I totally support him, and I hope he comes out a free man, albeit his business will probably be ruined.

He tried to have people killed. You are defending this. What the hell is wrong with you?

I don't support drug laws. I ESPECIALLY don't support attempted murder.

[anon4]

I prefer attempted murder to drug laws. One psychopath does less damage than a government of micromanaging geriatrics.

[hahainternet]

Really? You're willing to post publicly that you don't mind him having attempted to kill people to keep his kingpin status? That you still support him?

[neotek]

Don't put words in his mouth, that's a shitty debating tactic.

[wyager]

>He tried to have people killed.

Do you have any proof of that? It looks like the government doesn't.

[Touche]

I don't know where you get that from. They don't have proof that anyone died, and perhaps no one did. That doesn't mean attempting a hit is any less heinous.

[wyager]

>I don't know where you get that from.

The titular "disappearing murder charges". If they had evidence, they would have pressed charges against him for murder.