I think I can understand intersango's motives here.  Firstly there's the valid entrapment argument.  Secondly, they could be charged with knowingly aiding and abetting an illegal act if somehow OP was busted for buying drugs - I'm not saying OP *was* buying drugs, but *if* he was, and LE followed the trail, they might find that intersango knowingly allowed a client to use their services for transferring funds to a known drug trading website.

If bitcoin is ever to be widely accepted as a mainstream currency, it would be better that the critical nodes (exchanges, online wallets etc) stay above the law.  Intersango closing OP's account will present absolutely no problems to OP if he wants to continue trading on SR (apart from the immediate problem of getting his money back).  It's like Intersango is wearing a halo and saying "See, officer, we stopped *that* bad guy, aren't we nice and oh-so-legal." while really everybody knows it's bullshit and there's nothing anyone can do to stop people trading on SR.

I think the implications are more "irritating" than "disturbing".  OP shouldn't have mentioned SR.  I wouldn't be surprised if the guys at Intersango rolled their eyes and thought "Damn, why did you mention *that*, now WTF do we do".  They're playing ball in two courts at once and OP crossed the line.

edit: I think OP should change the title of this thread (if possible). Calling something a scam just because it steps on your toes is an overreaction, and, in this case, has portrayed OP in a much worse light that he was trying for with intersango.