Quote from: bryant.coleman on October 25, 2015, 12:24:17 PM

Quote from: n2004al on October 25, 2015, 10:10:43 AM

Bryant, I don't want to be polemic with you. This post is only to satisfy one my simple curiosity. And maybe to understand more. Maybe all you write is correct. I cannot know the right about this question. The only thing that is sure in this story (and no one from both us can deny) is that Ross Ulbricht is a person who had created and owned the most profitable platform to hold the most enormous market of illegal things (dangerous things for the people) in the USA in which were moved millions of us dollars.

Ross Ullbrich profited from his activity, to some extent. He received tens of thousands of Bitcoins as fee, but he didn't converted any of that to fiat. Yes. Trading of drugs are illegal in the United States. But drug legalization is spreading all over the world. Portugal and Uruguay have legalized all forms of recreational drugs.

Quote from: n2004al on October 25, 2015, 10:10:43 AM

Him's activity helped essentially (in the meaning that without it everything was impossible to exist) this market which create disease and distress in thousand and thousand (maybe more) people. I have only a question: Why FBI can make such thing mentioned by you in your post if only the above things mentioned by me in this post are enough to condemn Ross Ulbricht lifetime in prison? Why needed such invention, such action from FBI?

The FBI want to scare away all future online drug marketeers. So they made an example out of Ross.

From your answer I see that we think very differently but yet i will give my point of view. Even I understand that it will be not accepted at all from you.

First, this links tell me other things about the legalization of drugs in Portugal. Maybe it is not updated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal

Second, remain only Uruguay. As about for me this example is not a spread of legalization of drugs but only a limitation of spread of legalization of drugs. Uruguay is only one country. But even if it would be another one or even other ten others, for me is again a limitation and not a spread. Are more than 200 the countries in the world and are not 1 or 2 or 10 of those which can serve as example.

I think that needed much more to call the example of this country (or 10 countries) about drug policies as a spread of legalization. And to tell the right, for me, Uruguay cannot be example for anything even if there can be something to take from this country. That something to take, if exist, I think that can be found much more better to be taken in some other country. If for you this country is source of inspiration we are very away from each other in understanding, interpreting and doing things.

Third, but let's discuss about another things. The fact that drugs do well or do bad. Independently from the spread of legalization or other lateral things correlated with this product, the drug do bad or do good? This is the essence of the problem with Ross Ulbricht. If we accept that the drug do bad (and the legalization may be forced to not make possible and prevent the more bad which can be made from being illegal of it) then the earnings of Ross Ulbright (even if not used) are (must be) punishable. If not used that does not mean that he had earned that money only to see the grow of the amount. One day he would spent that money (if not all, part of those). If we don't agree in this point the go forward is in vain and I will stop here.

If will agree in this point, then this activity can be enough to punish Ulbricht lifetime in prison for the amount of the bad make with him's help. Which was not a lateral but basic help. Without this help anything would be possible. He offer basic help in (repeat) the disease and distress of thousand and thousand people and for more, even earn money doing this bad. Have nothing to do here the spread of legalization of the drugs (even if it will be so). We are speaking about a fact. Repeat: He offer basic help in the disease and distress of thousand and thousand people and for more, even earn money doing this bad.

If so, what more has added on him's punishment the invention pretended by you and made from FBI? This invention has added nothing to the punishment of Ross Ulbricht to make more fear to the "all future online drug marketeers"? Lifetime prison for Ulbricht was and lifetime prison for Ulbricht remain even after the pretended invention of FBI. Where is the value of this act?

As I told in the beginning of this post I have doubt that you will find correct my reasoning because I see from your answer that we think differently. But I am curious to have your answer to my this post (if you find opportune to do this). Naturally without repeating the same things because it will be in vain to write again the same things.