back to article Silk Road 2.0 busted! At least two arrests as federal crackdown begins

If drugs traffickers thought the anonymous online black market calling itself Silk Road 2.0 would be any safer from law enforcement than the original, it looks like they had better think again. According to reports by Forbes and TechCrunch, the FBI have made "multiple arrests" of people believed to be involved with Silk Road 2 …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Turtle

    Exactly.

    "The identity of this new DPR is still unknown. But on Friday he issued a statement to Silk Road 2.0 users saying the site had not been compromised by the recent arrests, since neither of the forum moderators that were charged had access to sensitive material."

    That's exactly what the Feds would want him to say.

    : )

    1. Alan W. Rateliff, II
      Paris Hilton

      Re: Exactly.

      Especially if he *is* a fed...

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Silk Road 2.0 busted?

      Think again.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    It's all good

    More scum off the streets for a long time.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: It's all good

      Yeah, those evil forum moderators. Real scum of the earth them. Going round, errr, moderating forums. Twat.

    2. Oliver Burkill

      Re: It's all good

      No, more "scum" on the street as that's were dealing will move back to if it proves impossible to carry out online. You can't win the drugs war.

      1. moiety

        Re: It's all good

        > You can't win the drugs war

        ...unless you own a prison or draw salary arresting people for the botanical equivalent of wine, no. Or are a judge getting kickbacks from prison owners for sentencing people.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: It's all good

          It's better to keep consumption under control than just let it explode.

          Why do you think drugs are controlled, it's simple. They're not good for you. Even prescription drugs are bad enough, people dying or very nearly dying from addictions to codeine and other things.

          While there's a case for some milder strength weed to be allowed, the opiates and highly psychoactive substances should be kept under control.

          Plenty of good reasons for it being not legal there. Employers used to give it to their workers to get more out of them.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cocaine#Prohibition_of_cocaine_in_the_United_States

          1. M Gale

            Re: It's all good

            And the worst part about the inhumane drugs war is that it has resulted in people lumping pretty much any psychoactive compound under the umbrella demonisation term "DRUGZ". Alcohol is a drug, you know, with far more harm potential than many of the illegal substances out there.

            Really, comparing weed to cocaine? Might as well compare an egg whisk to a jackhammer.

          2. Oliver Burkill

            Re: It's all good

            All drugs should be controlled. I believe we should have stronger controls on alcohol as one of the most dangerous, addictive and socially harmful drugs available.

            Criminalizing drugs is not an effective means of controlling them.. Heroin and other opiates would be the first drugs I would control properly with some kind of legal framework to as far as possible destroy the illicit market.

            You say drugs are not good for you but almost all of the downsides are related to the distribution and use being criminalized. The health issues with heroin given a pure supply and administered properly are constipation and physical dependance, compare that to alcohol which can also cause physical dependance but has a massive list of other health issues it causes that are much worse than constipation. While heroin is certainly more addictive than alcohol that's not the main reason that many more heroin users become addicted. Alcohol has been tolerated legally and socially for generations and the rules and customs of it's relatively safe use are built into the fabric of our society. Where alcohol has been introduced into cultures without that share understanding it is almost as disruptive as heroin can be. In our society alcohol has been controlled properly but the control of heroin use is in the hands of sociopaths with predictable results.

            1. Charles 9 Silver badge

              Re: It's all good

              "All drugs should be controlled. I believe we should have stronger controls on alcohol as one of the most dangerous, addictive and socially harmful drugs available."

              But also SO ingrained in many cultures that people would sooner declare war on their countries than declare war on their vices. Look at America's Prohibition era. If people want something badly enough, they'll get it in spite of God, Man, or the Devil. That's why the US hasn't even tried anything serious with tobacco: it's in the same boat.

          3. Syntax Error
            Happy

            Re: It's all good

            "It's better to keep consumption under control than just let it explode"

            Not so sure there would be the explosion you think. Amsterdam or Holland have never exploded in drug use.

            Obviously medical drugs need to be controlled but they are not taken for pleasure so are outside the parameters of this debate.

            Opiates should be controlled but psychoatives are not really addictive except for the mentally disturbed. People in my experience only take these types of drugs for an experimental period of time.

            As for coke and meths well they should be marketed like champagne and vodka. Cocaine is very popular in the USA and certain British politicians.

            1. Charles 9 Silver badge

              Re: It's all good

              "As for coke and meths well they should be marketed like champagne and vodka. Cocaine is very popular in the USA and certain British politicians."

              The trouble is these some of these drugs can have side effects: FATAL ones. Cocaine can cause fatal heart attack and certain opiates like heroin can cause your heart to stop. In ONE controlled dose. I think even Ecstasy can do that in one pill. Drugs that can kill when used as directed MUST be controlled for the same reason we control uses of strong acids and the like: they're life-threatening.

              1. M Gale

                Re: It's all good

                Coke, possibly, over a long period of usage. There's a reason it's also known as "Forced March". Ecstasy (as in MDMA, not the research chemicals you buy outside a nightclub for a quid), no. That has a different side effect of depression caused by you exhausting your serotonin supply in repeated bursts of I LOVE YOU, MAN. Leah Betts is the poster child everyone brings out for MDMA-related deaths, and she didn't die from ecstasy poisoning. She died from water overdose after listening to government FUD about "OMG YOU WILL DEHYDRATE UNLESS YOU DRINK LOOOOOADS." Heroin's major problem is the extreme addiction.

                Weed's only a problem if you're schizophrenic. But then, if you have that sort of problem, you should also be avoiding alcohol, and possibly strong coffee.

                1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                  Stop

                  Re: Blowhard Re: It's all good

                  ".....Weed's only a problem if you're schizophrenic....." One of the "joys" of working in the IT industry is you get to meet plenty of potheads, and they all rebleat that "only if you're a schizo" line, do they print it not he Rizzla wrappers now? I am talking people I have known from secondary school right through to their middle-age. It's got to the point where I can spot the casual smokers, the ones that have a few joints a week as opposed to a few each day. Believe me, when you look at casual potheads that have done "just a few joints a week" after they have been doing it for thirty years you can really see the difference in levels of lucidity and reasoning capability compared to people that don't smoke weed. The ones that are smoking several joints a day usually drop out of the IT industry all together, they just can't hack the pace. And that's thirty years of the old "soft" weed, not the "hard" weed that seems to be becoming the vogue. Sorry, not a "formal study", just empirical observation, but if you really think that weed in the long term will have no effect then you're definitely smoking something.

                  1. Jimboom

                    Re: Blowhard It's all good

                    "but if you really think that weed in the long term will have no effect then you're definitely smoking something."

                    True. But I would sooner hang out with those casual smokers then the hypocritical pissheads that claim "They would never touch drugs and thinks anyone who does is a dirty hippy" as they light up their umpteenth fag of the day.

                    1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                      Facepalm

                      Re: Jimboom Re: Blowhard It's all good

                      ".....as they light up their umpteenth fag of the day." Whilst I support the way you demonstrate the hypocrisy of smokers that call potheads "hippies", you fail to realise that smoking was once not only socially acceptable but even praised for it's "healthy benefits"! You also fail to see that smoking has become unacceptable due to the realisation of its damage to the body and the addictive potential of nicotine, yet you fail to see that smoking cannabis is both addictive (if only psychologically) and ALSO that the smoking action presents many of the health threats of cigarette smoke. In short, you are pointing out one hypocrisy by illustrating your own.

                      Oh, and I don't smoke.

                  2. This post has been deleted by its author

                    1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                      FAIL

                      Re: AC Re: Blowhard It's all good

                      ".....how many people have you seen ruin their lives with alcohol?...." Actually, in the IT industry, not that many, and certainly less than have gone overboard on weed. The problem for your argument is that the problems of "evil" alcohol have been known for years and IT people are usually above average intelligence, so they get and accept the "excessive drink is bad" concept, but they often fall for the fuzzy-feel-good "but weed is harmless" schpiel. But you go on trying to ignore the potential issues of being a pothead by trying to equate it with the "evils" of the legal drug alcohol if it helps you cope.

                      "......People who drop out of anything in such a manner frequently have more going on in their lives than weed smoking....." So you can see that "evil" alcohol can be used excessively by those trying to escape their lives, but you fail to see that the same applies, that excessive weed use could be for EXACTLY the same reasons - to escape their humdrum existence. All you have done is point out that the people that use weed heavily are more than likely compensating for problems in their lives, but you suggest it is fine for them to hide from their issues behind cannabis but not to do so with "evil" alcohol? Major fail!

                      ".....Furthermore, I suffered from crippling anxiety and depression for years (at one point I couldn't leave the house for 2 years), weed helped me to cope with all of that when conventional medicines and psychiatrists struggled to help......" Gee, and no other medicine has any side effects? Please do go read up on Prozac and the long list of side effects, which doctors have to take into account when prescribing Prozac. Just about any drug, even Asprin, have negatives against which doctors have to balance the benefits of using it. The issue is Prozac and other similar drugs have been tested and approved, whereas weed has largely not. In cases of medicinal use I actually support medicinal marihuana, but only if it is first tested and approved, and not when it is skunk from some guy on the corner, and not when it is being passed off as "cool" for those with no medical requirement. I know people that take Prozac (and have side effects), that doesn't mean I would support the idea of everyone being told Prozac should be taken as a recreational drug just because it is OK for medical use. Another fail.

                      ".....The amount of absolute horseshit....." So, what you're saying is that anyone that supports a view that doesn't agree 100% with yours is "horseshit"? How open-minded! I do not rule out either the future legalisation of cannabis or the possible medical benefits, but unlike you I'm not just going to accept it without some actual scientific evidence. Until then, I would suggest you try a more constructive argument rather than just accusing all your opponents of "horseshit" if you actually want to try convincing people being a pothead hasn't rendered you incapable of calm and reasoned discourse.

              2. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: It's all good

                I think you're overreacting a bit

          4. Ben Rosenthal

            Re: It's all good

            "It's better to keep consumption under control than just let it explode."

            Are you really under the impression that anyone who wants drugs is not already able to get hold of them?

            Lol.

          5. asdf Silver badge

            Re: It's all good

            >It's better to keep consumption under control than just let it explode.

            >Why do you think drugs are controlled, it's simple. They're not good for you. Even prescription drugs are bad enough, people dying or very nearly dying from addictions to codeine and other things.

            You do realize you just made the case for why outright banning drugs is the stupidest thing to do if you want to control drugs right? All you do is make it more lucrative for organized crime. True generations ago true today. I am not saying legalize everything but pissing away taxpayer money on a failing drug war is stupid. Doing it for 45+ years is beyond retarded. The only people now that defend it profit from the current policy continuing.

        2. mr.K

          Re: It's all good

          Isn't the botanical equivalent of wine, like, wine?

        3. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          @ moiety

          The story is about meth. It's not the botanical equivalent of wine.

        4. Ben Rosenthal

          Re: It's all good

          Wars always have people profiteering without doing anything to advance either cause.

        5. asdf Silver badge

          Re: It's all good

          > Or are a judge getting kickbacks from prison owners for sentencing people.

          Or a politician because after all what could possibly go wrong with giving people an incentive to store people like cord wood for profit? Its not like they will then bribe the politicians to encourage more incarceration. Its only a coincidence the US leads the world in prison population per capita and has so many private prisons.

  3. Cliff

    FBI in doing same thing twice shocker!

    Apparently it's possible to do the thing you did once before a second time - who'd have thought it?

    1. Mark 65 Silver badge

      Re: FBI in doing same thing twice shocker!

      A mole would seem the obvious source.

  4. westlake

    Panic Attack.

    If you are a cop, you've have got to love this:

    "Guys I was arrested yesterday and out on bond now. But something is fucked! I know I'm risking more warning you guys and my attorney doesn't even want me on the internet but you guys need to know this. When I was in the interview they showed me all sorts of shit that they should not know or have access to ... Something is definitely wrong and they have the ability to see things on here only mods or admins should like transfers and a dispute I had."

    The first to spill their guts gets a deal, the rest will be hung out to dry.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Panic Attack.

      Might be thinking twice about RSA encryption now.

      1. Adam 1 Silver badge

        Re: Panic Attack.

        There is nothing wrong with RSA. Ecliptic curve pseudo random number generators are another matter entirely.

        1. Adam 1 Silver badge

          Re: Panic Attack.

          Er, that should have been elliptic, as in Dual Elliptic Curve Deterministic Random Bit Generator.

          Stupid autocomplete or well played Mr NSA.

  5. nuked

    Try harder

    As always the attempt to create a honey trap is painfully obvious (Silk Road 2.0); oh please. Any previous user who is not missing his/her cerebrum is long gone, and the saps getting caught are new users who have been invited to search for drugs through TOR, because the TV recently said that they could.

    1. Dave 126 Silver badge

      Re: Try harder

      Anonymity means that a citizen can never be sure that they are not dealing with an FBI agent. Anonymity means that entrapment can't be proven. Even if the FBI didn't bother creating a honey trap, the mere threat of one will act as a disincentive.

  6. Anonymous Coward
    FAIL

    Honey Trap?

    I don't believe an Honey Trap is involved. All that is required is that a significant number of the nodes within TOR, especially entrance and/or exit nodes, be monitored and you can roll up the network whenever you have sufficient suspects. One of the things that I looked at was donating an AWS node to TOR. It became clear to me exactly what would be required to break anonymity on TOR. Nothing special, just own a bunch of it.

    1. Quinnicus

      Re: Honey Trap?

      I think you would also need control over a significant number of relay nodes, as well as exit nodes. So then in theory, you could follow the white rabbit throughout your own network (exit node > relay node > relay node > relay node > destination)

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Honey Trap?

        Nope. All you need is recording of packets entering the system of nodes and those exiting them, then sufficient computing capability to match one to the other. You need not have all the nodes, as you might expect, just a sufficient number. MITM capabilitiy would be nice at these exact points. (Where have I heard they have that?) At best, the relays would allow you to check the coverage on the overall system, but they contribute nothing to the actual process. Toss a few million, actually close to a billion I expect, given exactly the level of retention of all traffic and you too can be the NSA.

        Waving the 'Cryptographic Magic Wand' over something doesn't make it secure. Packets are still packets and entries and exits are where they have a much lower level of protection. Or as I prefer to put it, plumbing is still plumbing. I was there for the birth of ARPAnet, Unix, and a bunch of other stuff. Assuming complexity where there is no such a requirement is a failing of the modern today.

    2. Adam 1 Silver badge

      Re: Honey Trap?

      I think theoatmeal needs to do a chart on when to use an. :)

  7. John Deeb

    Ultimate honey trap not likely but...

    It would be impressive to have Silk 2.0 being operated by the Feds as ultimate honey trap. But more likely they use social media to get the idea out there of those markets being unsafe and risky. Which of course they are but they want to exaggerate that aspect so one can expect to see these news items in greater sequence appearing to drive the point home. Not sure it will work though, people often go by a trusted word of mouth to determine if it's doable or not. Not some online statement here or there.

  8. Matt Bryant Silver badge
    Pirate

    ROFLMAO!

    Seriously, they were surprised the FBI had been supplied with what looks like eavesdropped info? We're they smoking something all through the Ed Snowdope "revelations"? Oh, come to think of it, they probably were.

  9. El Presidente

    Oh FFS

    The sooner Our Generation grow the feck up and decriminalise the better.

    All the 'soldiers' in the retarded 'war on drugs' are wasting more of our taxes in their unwinnable 'war' than 'benefit scroungers' 'tax evaders' 'immigrants' and expenses troughing members of parliament combined.

    70 years of 'war' and nothing to show for it but repetitive crap headlines and middle class hypocrisy.

    #Team Nigella

    1. TitterYeNot
      Joke

      Re: Oh FFS

      <Best Hispanic accent> Hello. My name is Inigo Montoya. You hashtagged the Reg's comments section. Prepare to die...

  10. Hoe

    TOR is NOT safe but people stupidly believe it too be, stop for a second and think seriously...

    IF IT WERE SAFE & UN-TRACABLE...

    Would the American government not have taken down the distribution of it immediately?

    YES.

    IT IS NOT SAFE.

    Sorry for caps but I am fed up of reading of people falling foul of the law because they think they are hidden online, if you really want to be hidden online you need some form of intelligence, a little money and a paranoid outlook and even then there are oh so many ways to slip up and suddenly expose yourself.

    1. Will Godfrey Silver badge

      Of course TOR isn't 'safe'. No lock with even one key is 'safe', and indeed TOR never claimed to be. If you look at their website they tell you exactly that. However, used with care, with other security measures and not too frequently, it can be a life saver.

  11. Sanctimonious Prick

    The NSA buys TOR Network in Secret Deal

    Oh... oops, Eddy hasn't released that one, yet.

    Read the first three paragraphs on the following page, then report back the number of alarm bells that went off!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tor_(anonymity_network)

    I just don't think I can handle this any more.

  12. Martin Maloney
    Coat

    The Internet is too dangerous

    People should get their illicit drugs the old-fashined way -- on the street, from their friendly neighborhood dope pusher:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIzRGHuJt_I

  13. Winkypop Silver badge

    Kids these days.......

    What's wrong with the traditional venue; meeting in the pub car park?

    1. Syntax Error
      Happy

      Re: Kids these days.......

      Well I guess the problem is that you'd have to walk or get out of a car or some kind of exercise, but if you can buy them on line they are just delivered. Far more convenient.

      1. Hungry Sean
        Childcatcher

        Re: Kids these days.......

        I was under the impression that the majority of clients of the original silk road were middle aged folks who felt they'd reached a point in their lives where they shouldn't have to deal with shady characters in dark alleys and were willing to pay a premium for a low-effort high quality service.

        Grownups these days. . .

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Kids these days.......

        You still have to get out of your computer chair and climb the stairs from mommy's basement to get the post though!

        Seriously why can't these kids just say no?

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Kids these days.......

          In the olden days kids just said 'no'.

          these days they just say 'now'...

  14. Matt Bryant Silver badge
    Pirate

    BIG difference between commercial and street drugs.

    To all those insisting they get "good gear", I am reminded of a case from not so many years ago. A delightful artist in her late twenties led the ideal tree-hunger lifestyle, treating her body like a temple and only eating organic food, etc., etc. problem was she was buying "organic weed" from a hippy dealer. Believing that modern medicine was just a tool of the drug companies, when she started to feel unwell she insisted on trying alternate medicine. Nothing worked, her pain grew, until some Chinese quack suggested she had multiple sclerosis and actually advised her to smoke more grass. Finally, when she collapsed, her family got her into a proper hospital, where they were horrified to find her body was riddled with cancerous tumours. Turns out her "hippy dealer" was anything but, and he was just another heartless crim out to make a buck. His so-called "organic weed" was actually being intensively cultivated in Morocco and the farmers hadn't wanted to worry about pests so had sprayed it with some pretty nasty and illegal pesticides. Smoking the grass has allowed the chemicals to quickly and easily enter her bloodstream, and she just happened to be more susceptible. By the time she was admitted to hospital it was already too late, her alternate lifestyle had seen to that.

    Moral of the story is if you're stupid enough to do drugs don't assume they come with the same quality controls proper medicines (or even alcoholic drinks) come with. If you're stupid enough to smoke grass then probably best you grow your own.

    1. BlueGreen

      Re: BIG difference between commercial and street drugs. @plump & bleaty

      > I am reminded of a case from not so many years ago

      ref please, plumps, else it's just an urban legend or something you invented, and don't give us the "you look it up if you need proof", the onus lies on the one doing the claiming.

      > if you're stupid enough to do drugs

      hmmm. Might say more about you than us.

      1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
        FAIL

        Re: Loser Re: BIG difference between commercial and street drugs. @plump & bleaty

        "....ref please....." Sorry, it was a while back so I can't remember a name, but IIRC she studied at St Martins in London. I'll have a Yahoogle and see if I can find the news reports.

        ".....it's just an urban legend or something you invented....." LOL, I already had you pegged as a baaaaah-liever, but even an idiot as stupid as you surely doesn't want to pretend street drugs get cut with all kinds of harmful rubbish? Yes, even weed, often mixed with everything from grass cuttings to potential nasties such as stinkweed and oleander cuttings. Please do explain the extensive horticultural training and experience you have that allows you to identify everything in your backstreet purchase, especially when you're probably permanently half-cut going by your posts. I suggest you go Yahoogle "marijuana pesticides" and get an adult to read it to you. You could start here where it even talks to an attorney fighting for legalised medical weed (http://www.alternet.org/there-pesticide-weed-youre-smoking). What you buy from your dealer has NO quality control, and the drug dealers have NO responsibility to do any form of chemical control, they just want to make money. The only way you will know for sure is to grow your own or really get very close to the farmer (which would probably put you at greater danger of arrest as an accomplice). So not sorry to pop that bubble of ignorance you live and inhale in. Enjoy!

        The tree-huggers puffing away on weed in California are even responsible for destroying the wildlife they proclaim to hold so dear (http://www.kcet.org/news/the_back_forty/commentary/golden-green/-rachel-carson-was-right.html).

        ".....Might say more about you than us." Don't worry, your previous posts have already exposed you as exactly the kind of stupid to think taking drugs is "rebellious" or "alternative". I just think of people like you as Darwinism in operation, removing potential competitors by their own silliness.

        1. BlueGreen

          Re: Loser BIG difference between commercial and street drugs. @plump & bleaty

          > I'll have a Yahoogle

          would be appreciated.

          > but even an idiot as stupid as you surely doesn't want to pretend street drugs get cut with all kinds of harmful rubbish?

          No, you are misrepresenting what I say, as is your wont. Easier to prop up the strawman and knock it down than address the actual point which was that *this particular* tale sounded just like the kind of crap spread by conformist types like yourself to scare people off bad naughty wicked things and onto the green grassy (and in your case, edible) path of righteousness Q.V. The Terrifying But Undeniably True Story Of Acid Users Staring At The Sun Until They Went Blind <http://www.snopes.com/horrors/drugs/lsdsun.asp>

          Don't be a dick, we all know adulteration of illegal drugs occurs with assorted crap, I wonder, can you suggest a way of preventing that?

          > The tree-huggers puffing away on weed in California are even responsible for destroying the wildlife they proclaim to hold so dear

          That may be true but is tangential to the veracity of your tale.

          > Don't worry, your previous posts have already exposed you as exactly the kind of stupid to think taking drugs is "rebellious" or "alternative".

          Hmm, I'd rather hoped you'd actually understood that my view that people should have the ultimate say over their own body and mind. Clearly not, but what can you expect from a bleaty quadruped graminivore whose entire body belongs to Farmer, and apparently is willing to surrender his mind and soul too???

          Happy xmas plumps, you are allowed inside this just for christmas day. Please eat the needles off carpet, it's a nice snack for you and saves on vacuuming, ta everso.

          1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
            FAIL

            Re: Loser Re: Loser BIG difference between commercial and street drugs.....

            ".....sounded just like the kind of crap spread by conformist types like yourself to scare people off bad naughty wicked things....." Oh, sorry, I forgot you're a fully-paid-up baaaah-liever, one of those that has the knee-jerk response of bleating about "squares ruining their fun" because it's less effort than actually thinking for yourself. I suppose the two women in Ireland that nearly died of contaminated weed were an Irish folk tale from the local cearnóga, eh? http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&fd=R&usg=AFQjCNE_zIpedxLwooX-xeDhcOR_S1bblw&url=http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0530/453502-two-in-intensive-care-over-contaminated-cannabis/

            So you ignored the links to the pesticide threat and the damage done to the environment by weed farmers, you really want to pretend that "harmless" marijuana never harms anyone? Hey, it's just your body, so you're the only one affected, right? Ignoring the threat to themselves, what about the harm such dumb smokers do to others? Like Ashley Smith here in the UK, who killed a father when she crashed into his car whilst high on weed? Would you like to tell his kids that drugs are harmless? Whilst driving drunk is on the decline, driving whilst stoned is on the increase because of idiots that like to pretend the warnings are just "squares ruining their fun" (http://www.washingtondcinjuryattorneyblog.com/2010/12/drugged-drivers-increase-fatal.html). Shame none of those "squares" had a word with New Zealander Lance Hopping before he killed ten people and himself piloting a balloon whilst stoned (http://news.sky.com/story/1161997/balloon-crash-pilot-smoked-pot-before-flying?f=ob). But you go insisting it's your "right" to use whatever drugs you like.

            See, it doesn't just effect you, but also idiots that put their trust in you. Like Lara Smith, who trusted Matthew Norcott, who bragged about how "wonderful" he felt when he was high, even AFTER he killed Lara when driving drugged up on ecstasy (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2185379/Facebook-post-driver-Matthew-Norcott-high-drugs-killed-beauty-therapist.html). Maybe you want to go and "like" his Facebook posts? Maybe before you do you should Yahoogle for "drugged driver killed" to get an idea of the hundreds of sheeple that, just like you, thought it was just the lying of kill-joy squares.

            And whatever you do, don't go read about the kids trafficked as farm slaves to grow the stuff here in the UK, now that will really pop your bubble (you'll have to suspend your belief in joy-killing squares long enough to put down a subscription on this one.)

            http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/britains_secret_slaves/article1304823.ece

            Sorry, but before that last incredibly stupid post I used to just think your stupidity was amusing, but now I actually pity you.

            1. M Gale

              Re: Loser Loser BIG difference between commercial and street drugs.....

              So basically, every single bad thing you're throwing at mowie wowie is there because it's illegal, and not because it's mowie wowie.

              You know the answer to that problem, but neither you nor the Daily Heil will like it very much.

              Also, medicinal weed is best vaped or eaten, not smoked. In fact that's the case for marijuana full stop, but you know, illegal, inflated prices, people do what they can.

              1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                FAIL

                Re: Blowhard Re: Loser Loser BIG difference between commercial and street drugs.....

                "So basically, every single bad thing you're throwing at mowie wowie is there because it's illegal, and not because it's mowie wowie....." So basically, you really want to baaaah-lieve that every point raised that shows the dangers of street drugs, that their manufacturers/farmers actually don't give a sh*t about their customers or the environment, being quite happy to poison both, you want to baaaah-lieve it's all "movie wowie" scaremongering.

                1. BlueGreen

                  Re: Blowhard Loser Loser BIG difference between commercial and street drugs.....

                  > So basically, you really want to baaaah-lieve ... scaremongering.

                  Entire post of MBZCC

                  1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                    FAIL

                    Re: Lying Loser Re: Blowhard Loser Loser BIG difference between commercial....

                    "> So basically, you really want to baaaah-lieve ... scaremongering.

                    Entire post of MBZCC"

                    And yet another post where BlueGreenLyingLoser once again cannot raise any form of argument or counter. The one thing you are consitant at is failing, it seems.

                    1. M Gale

                      Re: Lying Loser Blowhard Loser Loser BIG difference between commercial....

                      I think the only thing Bryant is consistent at, is seemingly cocaine-fuelled rants. I'm wondering if he'll try and implicate people in some Penguinista conspiracy to dull the minds of potential future Microsoft developers, next.

                      And we might have to do something about that. Muahahaha.

                      1. BlueGreen

                        Re: Lying Loser Blowhard Loser Loser BIG difference between commercial.... @M Gale

                        His increasingly inane simmerings are Most Excellent and I'm not sure I want to stop them because he's "just too much fun" (a quote from The Joker, another unbalanced individual - coincidence?)

                        And since he's such a riot, and since he apparently doesn't overly mind looking a prat in public, the show shall go on!

                        Hail to Plump & Bleaty, get your soft little muzzle down and graze on...

                    2. BlueGreen

                      Re: Lying Loser Blowhard Loser Loser BIG difference between commercial....

                      > And yet another post where BlueGreenLyingLoser once again cannot raise any form of argument or counter. The one thing you are consitant at is failing, it seems.

                      Moar MBZCC

                      1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                        FAIL

                        Re: Pitiful Lying Loser Blowhard Loser Loser BIG difference between commercial....

                        And yet more posts where you and your herd-buddie Blowhard fail to even raise a point, let alone counter the points I raise. All you do is underline the fact your "arguments" are myth and willful fantasies, based on your desires to have a good time regardless. Sure, if you want to be losers then that's your choice, but when your little habit causes widespread crime and suffering for others I'd have to suggest you try buying a clue rather than drugs.

            2. BlueGreen

              Re: Loser Loser BIG difference between commercial and street drugs.....

              @Plumpywumpy

              Honestly debating with you is like debating with a loop of tape, you get the same result every time. You really are intolerably dumb. Hokay...

              > Oh, sorry, I forgot [...] thinking for yourself.

              MBZCC

              > nearly died of contaminated weed

              Yess, plumpy, we get that *illegal* drugs get cut and there is a risk, I actually established that in my prior post. You really are profoundly dense. You even recognised that perhaps the best way is to grow your own but that would be *illegal* wouldn't it, and sheep can't have that, they like firm handling and rigorous routine or it upsets them.

              > So you ignored the links to the pesticide threat and the damage done to the environment by weed farmers

              No plumpy, my post was about the veracity of your original story about the woman whose "body was riddled with cancerous tumours", idiot. At least you tried to do a bit of research for this last response, so I guess things are looking up and I'll take your original story as being made in good faith. Something one cannot reliably do with you.

              > ...before he killed ten people and himself piloting a balloon whilst stoned

              > ...even AFTER he killed Lara when driving drugged up on ecstasy

              Yesssss plumpy, we've gone over this before, more than once, I guess it's slipped your conveniently forgetful memory. Again: drug use that damages others is unacceptable, the user must take reasonable precautions to ensure only their own health and livelihood are affected adversely, whether the drugs be legal (alcohol, ciggies) or illegal (weed, smack, speed etc) and whether the effect is by direct consequence to others or by production by a brutal supply chain (coke being a good example, although your farm slaves are another, and BTW smartphones made by near-slave labour in china from elements mined in, and fuelling conflict in, african countries is yet another).

              Stop attributing stupidity to others just so you can then accuse them of being stupid. It gets irritating and is dishonest, not that honesty or truth are your strong points.

              > ...but now I actually pity you.

              Your pity soothes me, plumpy, it rocks me to sleep at night.

              1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                FAIL

                Re: Loser Re: Loser Loser BIG difference between commercial and street drugs.....

                ".....Yess, plumpy, we get that *illegal* drugs get cut and there is a risk...." Except for the bit you claimed it was all scaremongering squares just trying to ruin your fun, you mean? You are so wrapped up in your lies you're losing track of your own fantasies.

                "....No plumpy, my post was about the veracity of your original story about the woman whose "body was riddled with cancerous tumours"...." No, you post was about ignoring the examples with clear ans evidential links in your desperate attempt to avoid reality, all because you want to baaaah-lieve.

                ".....drug use that damages others is unacceptable, the user must take reasonable precautions to ensure only their own health and livelihood are affected adversely....." Except that the morons that use drugs are shown to be the type to ignore realities and try to rationalise their baaaah-liefs. And that's before you get to the reduced judgement that drugs lead to. I find it hilarious that you bleat about alcohol without acknowledging that recreational drug use means you are much less able to make judgement calls. Major fail.

                ".....It gets irritating and is dishonest....." Then maybe you should stop lying to yourself.

                1. BlueGreen

                  Re: Loser Loser Loser BIG difference between commercial and street drugs.....

                  > Except for the bit you claimed it was all scaremongering squares just trying to ruin your fun, you mean?

                  Hmm? I don't recollect saying that and you haven't quoted my text. Please do so. If you can. But you can't because you made that up again didn't you, you fluffy little thing.

                  > No, you post was about [...] baaaah-lieve.

                  MBZCC

                  > Except that the morons that use drugs are shown to be the type to ignore realities and try to rationalise their baaaah-liefs.

                  "are shown to be"? Reference please, plumpsywumpsy

                  > I find it hilarious that you bleat about alcohol without acknowledging that recreational drug use means you are much less able to make judgement calls.

                  That claim is a non-sequiteur to anything I posted. Nice attempt at diversion though.

                  Out of interest, do you condone the home cultivation of drugs as a way of controlling their purity, or not? You recommend it but given your cringing obedience to law, I'm not sure where you stand.

                  > Then maybe you should stop lying to yourself.

                  MBZCC again! If in doubt sling in something vacuous and hope they feel insulted. Au contraire lambchop, your half-a-walnut-sized brain boiling with impotent ovine rage entertains me. Why should I stop?

                  1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                    FAIL

                    Re: Lying Loser Loser Loser BIG difference between commercial and street drugs.....

                    ".... I don't recollect saying that and you haven't quoted my text ...." Hmmm, how about when you posted the following:

                    Posted Wednesday 25th December 2013 17:19 GMT

                    BlueGreen

                    Re: Loser BIG difference between commercial and street drugs.

                    ".....*this particular* tale sounded just like the kind of crap spread by conformist types like yourself to scare people off bad naughty wicked things and onto the green grassy (and in your case, edible) path of righteousness...."

                    "....Reference please...." Every single one of your posts.

                    "....do you condone the home cultivation of drugs as a way of controlling their purity, or not?...." I would suggest that, if you're going to be stupid enough to do drugs, then you should probably try and limit the inevitable harm to yourself by at least controlling the source. Smoking/drinking/injecting anything which you know has had no quality controls and has been produced without any legal standards control would seem very stupid, but you'd probably disagree, probably due to the DDT having rotted the bits of your brain the drugs haven't yet. Either way, it's also probably better given that the main cause of common crime is loser junkies trying to get the cash together to buy their next hit, so home cultivation would seem a good start. The problem is most of those junkies have progressed from starter drugs like grass to harder stuff (it's called gateway drugs, go read up on it when you come down), so home cultivation won't help them.

                    "....your half-a-walnut-sized brain boiling with impotent ovine rage entertains me....." And there's just more fantasy - I'm laughing at your stupidity. But then you probably can't tell due to having inhaled pesticide-soaked weed more than once.

                    1. BlueGreen

                      Re: Lying Loser Loser Loser BIG difference between commercial and street drugs.....

                      > ".... I don't recollect saying that and you haven't quoted my text ...." Hmmm, how about when you posted the following: ".....*this particular* tale sounded just like the kind of crap spread by conformist types like yourself to scare people off bad naughty wicked things and onto the green grassy (and in your case, edible) path of righteousness...."

                      No, plumpsy, I was talking about *that* particular tale. In fact that's what I said, read it again and more slowly: ".*this particular* tale sounded just like" <---- that's what I wrote.

                      Whereas you said "you claimed it was all scaremongering squares" <---- that's what you wrote

                      There's a big difference between "this particular" and "all" and you are too tied up in your ego to admit you're wrong so it's easier to pretend the other person said something they didn't. Daft lamb.

                      .

                      > "....Reference please...." Every single one of your posts.

                      Oh plumpsy, not again!? The reference I requested was for this...

                      > Except that the morons that use drugs are shown to be the type to ignore realities and try to rationalise their baaaah-liefs.

                      And you couldn't provide any ref to a reliable source. Why????? Is it because you made up that "fact" and there's nothing to back it up???? Now who is trying to ignore reality?

                      .

                      > I would suggest that, if you're going to be stupid enough to do drugs, then you should probably try and limit the inevitable harm to yourself by at least controlling the source...rotted the bits of your brain the drugs haven't yet

                      An answer of sorts at last, even if laced with insults. Better than nothing I suppose. About this bit

                      > Smoking/drinking/injecting anything which you know has had no quality controls and has been produced without any legal standards control would seem very stupid, but you'd probably disagree,

                      I wouldn't disagree but ISTM that legalising these things might be the obvious way to control their quality, so do you endorse legalising them to this end, or not?

                      > the main cause of common crime is loser junkies trying to get the cash together to buy their next hit

                      ref please plumps

                      > most of those junkies have progressed from starter drugs like grass to harder stuff

                      Another 'fact' pulled from your clotted wooly behind. Let's try <http://healthland.time.com/2010/10/29/marijuna-as-a-gateway-drug-the-myth-that-will-not-die/> and for another intelligent (more so than you anyway) and balanced (ditto) article <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gateway_drug_theory>. Truth - so inconvenient, eh.

                      > And there's just more fantasy - I'm laughing at your stupidity.

                      Watching you froth like espresso milk and try to pretend you're laughing at us is just ace! Fun with plumpswumpsy! Please make up some more stuff you can't justify so I can blow you out of the water again!

                      1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                        FAIL

                        Re: Pitiful Lying Loser BIG difference between commercial and street drugs.....

                        "....No, plumpsy, I was talking about *that* particular tale...." You explicitly stated that you baaah-lieved there are "conformist types" (which implies not just me but a whole group of people) whose only motivation in putting out counterpoint to the "drugz iz gud" mantra was "to scare people off bad naughty wicked things and onto the.... path of righteousness...." Face it, you asked for proof that you said it and I pointed out the exact statement in your post. You seem to be having a problem coping with reality in that you assume you can just try and imagine that something isn't so and it will not be so - is that the drugs talking?

                        "....I wouldn't disagree but ISTM that legalising these things might be the obvious way to control their quality, so do you endorse legalising them to this end, or not?...." Only for medical usage, where the benefits of the drug can be considered against the side-effects by a medical professional. Then it should be from a quality-checked source just like any other painkiller. In essence, heroin actually works in the body by breaking down into morphine, but would you accept the medical advice of a doctor that suggested using morphine that he didn't know was pure or even as to how much of a dose of morphine it actually contained, let alone what else (powdered cleaner, sugar, plaster dust) it had been cut with? I'm sure even a sheeple like yourself would admit that heroin users are playing Russian roulette with every fix they buy on the street, yet you unquestioningly accept the risk of smoking (or eating) marijuana which could be tainted with all types of chemicals? And you do unquestioningly accept it as you described the cautionary tale and links supplied as "killjoy scaremongering".

                        I have had to previosuly send hungover employees and stoned employees home because their conditions made them incapable of completing their work (in one case it made the employee a danger to himself and others). The fact that one was legally incapable whilst the other was illegally incapable made SFA difference to the fact they were both useless at the time. The difference is the longterm effects of legal alcohol are widely known and accepted, but to even suggest there may be dangers from marijuana or other recreational drugs, especially "trendy" street drugs, instantly draws shrieking bleats of "killjoy" from the sheeple like yourself. Recreationally, if you have to get high to get happy then I suggest you have more than a few problems other than your blinkered outlook you should deal with.

                        1. BlueGreen

                          Re: Pitiful Lying Loser BIG difference between commercial and street drugs.....

                          @Plump & Bleaty

                          > Face it, you asked for proof that you said it and I pointed out the exact statement in your post

                          I repeat (2nd or 3rd time?) that it was about the truth of that particular tale. Which you could find no reference for and still cannot.

                          > "....I wouldn't disagree but ISTM that legalising these things might be the obvious way to control their quality, so do you endorse legalising them to this end, or not?...." Only for medical usage,

                          Do you seriously think pharmaceuticals *aren't* already a) legal and b) manufactured to strict standards. You utter idiot.

                          However, at least you show that you don't believe it should be legalised for recreational purposes. Fair enough, we disagree (for the moment; I may or may not be persuaded to change my view with new evidence).

                          > And you do unquestioningly accept it as you described the cautionary tale and links supplied as "killjoy scaremongering".

                          Ah, making up crap again! I never said that. Try again plumps.

                          > The fact that one was legally incapable whilst the other was illegally incapable made SFA difference to the fact they were both useless at the time

                          You should have given them both written warnings IMO. If they are incapacitated and a danger to others, regardless of cause, there should be some serious sanction (assuming your story is true, anyway). You're still an idiot because I've made it clear repeatedly that responsible use of any drug is key.

                          > but to even suggest there may be dangers from marijuana or other recreational drugs, [...] instantly draws shrieking bleats of "killjoy" from the sheeple like yourself.

                          I've clearly acknowledged there are risk. You're still an idiot.

                          > > Except that the morons that use drugs are shown to be the type to ignore realities and try to rationalise their baaaah-liefs.

                          Still no reference for that one plumps? You made it up is why.

                          > > the main cause of common crime is loser junkies trying to get the cash together to buy their next hit

                          Still no ref plumps?

                          > > most of those junkies have progressed from starter drugs like grass to harder stuff

                          Not acknowledged the links I provided which suggest this is a myth? Why would that be?

                          1. M Gale

                            Re: Pitiful Lying Loser BIG difference between commercial and street drugs.....

                            Is this thread still going on?

                            Not acknowledged the links I provided which suggest this is a myth? Why would that be?

                            I think he's on drugs, myself. It's affected his reading comprehension. Seems to have seriously affected his comprehension of cause and effect, too. He still seems to think that all the problems caused by banning a herb are actually because of the herb.

                            And hey, apparently we're herd-buddies. At least that's what I assume by "Blowhard". He seems to have a problem remembering names when they're printed right in front of him, too.

                            1. BlueGreen

                              Re: Pitiful Lying Loser BIG difference between commercial and street drugs.....

                              @M Gale

                              Bryant baiting is just so much fun, and tying him up here keeps him off other threads so I like to think of it as a public service.

                              Plump little obedient sheep is on drugs? Hardly! Lessee though, delusions of grandeur (he's always right), delusions of persecution (why else would his posts get so many downvotes), problems spelling names, persistent logical fallacies, dissociation from reality, good lord Holmes, you may be onto something....

                              Have to say it may be time to shut this down, this is a public space I'm graffiti-ing all over, bad manners & all that, thanks for the reminder.

                              1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                                Happy

                                Re: Pitiful Lying Loser BIG difference between commercial and street drugs.....

                                "....Bryant baiting is just so much fun....." Aw, I see that you're still desperate to avoid admitting you're just wrong again. Again. Yet Again. All that losing, just for fun? LOL.

                                ".....and tying him up here keeps him off other threads so I like to think of it as a public service......" Hmm, seeing as you stalk me in all the threads I'd have to say it is you spending a large amount of your time keeping the community safe with your absence. Oh, and you haven't the intellectual ability to tie shoelaces, as shown by your posts and your desperate denial of the facts presented.

                                "....Have to say it may be time to shut this down...." And now you're just rtyign to avoid answering the points raised, no doubt because even your fevered mind can't make up any more claptrap. Maybe you puffed a little weed with some pesticides on it....? Hurry back to the "safety" of the flock, lambikins, where there's no dissenting voices to trouble your tiny mind.

  15. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    If its my body and I can do with it what I want then the government has no business in deciding what I take and what I don't take voluntarily. Even more so when it doesn't do stuff like create bacterial resistance that can affect others. If the government was so keen on reducing drug usage they would remove the social and environmental conditions that push people into abusing them. But then they would have to recognise there's something very broken, and that it is even harder to fix.

    At any rate it would seem that either the software platform they are using has been broken into, or most likely (at least given the scarce details given) they've managed to infect him with malware which given people's security practices it wouldn't be that surprising. One thing is showing up in these cases... people are making a lot of money and they are not bothering to hire experts to make sure their security is up to par.

This topic is closed for new posts.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019