Please read the parent I responded to. Especially the closing statement.

>If drugs were legal and treatment of abuse the focus instead of punishment Silk Road wouldn't have existed in the first place.

I cited Portgual, a country where drugs are legal and the focus is on treatment of users. Giving an example of where such a system exists and works. The "war on drugs" is the wrong approach. I implied, rather indirectly, that prison quotas have a lot to do with keeping drug use illegal. It makes it easier to fill quotas.

Now then - the parent and my focus were both more on the users and the wrong approach for the "war on drugs". A response to me focused more on distribution and extrapolating the legal stance of Portugal. So I cited a Wikipedia page that was more specific and re-iterated that my focus (and the parent I responded to, by extention) were more focused on drug users and treatment doing more good than going on witch hunts for distributors.

Congratulations, you caught Ulbricht. Now what about all the other dealers that people will turn to? Especially local dealers who might lace their drugs or have improperly manufactured drugs (ie. containing arsenic) that may lead to more deaths of users?

I have no idea how the Silk Road worked, but I imagine dealers had accounts and received feedback. This meant there was some level of Social Quality Control over the drugs. Anyone selling faulty/laced drugs would be quickly rooted from the market. Providing a 'safer' place to buy, even if still illegal, does more good for the users than having to trust shady dealers.

This is very, very related to the war on drugs. It's a criticism of the policy of it all.

I'll quote myself from another post I made:

"Mistaking some delusional world of zero crime doesn't do any good for people living in reality."

Maybe the best long-term policy is drug decriminalization and treatment (etc), and maybe were that already the case, Ulbricht would not have been tempted into doing anything bad.

Nonetheless, that has no bearing on this case. Once somebody is dabbling in murder, they need to go down, because they are clearly not somebody we want in society. That they were "tempted" into it by potential profits enabled by misguided prohibitions is irrelevant.

So yeah, decriminalize drugs, focus on treatment, etc. Maybe that will make the future of our society brighter. But Ulbricht belongs behind bars.

I don't disagree with your points. I don't like the War on Drugs either. I think it is destructive.

Ulbricht was a legitimate kingpin who at least tried to have people killed. I don't have much sympathy for him and I'd rather distance his actions from real issues with the War on Drugs.

I still disagree that Portugal's policies regarding users is that relevant here. You are right in what you are saying, though.