Silk Road forums
Discussion => Off topic => Topic started by: isallmememe on October 03, 2013, 12:26 am
-
its pretty obvious that the feds left the site up and running for longer, when they could have shut it down. possibly even weeks or months. which just shows what two faced lying motherfuckers they are. their prohibition laws are supposedly there in the first place to keep the public safe from the harmful effects of recreational drugs. by leaving the site up and running when they could have taken it down means they have left the public exposed to these so called dangerous drugs and the harm that they do to people. i wonder how many people overdosed or caught HIV or hep C while they were leaving the site operational, just so they could get their arrest. i hope the lives of those people were worth it so that some dirty pig fed could get a promotion. fucking low down, self-contradicting cunts the lot of them. go stick your tongues back up the politicians assholes you slimy turncoat cunts.
ironically shutting down the silk road is now going to expose thousands of drug users to way more harm from buying their drugs of the streets now. way to go to protect the public from the harmful effects of drugs you dirty lying cunts. everyone knows that the laws aren't really there to protect anyone from the harmful effects. those so called elite, the fat rich greedy pigs at the top, are the dealers at the top of the chain, the ones making the real big money from drugs. they want them to stay illegal to protect their cash cow. they don't give two shits for public safety. and the feds are just their lackies.
-
here's hoping them feds die a long painful death from aids in the eyes
-
bumping this because even tho written in anger, it is still a very valid and important point. the feds have seriously contradicted their own drug law by waiting to bring the sr site down. it shows that the reason they give for the drug laws being in existence in the first place are invalid. i.e they don't give a fuck about the harm they claim the drugs cause.
this point really needs to be pointed out to the wider public, and fast.
-
what the hel;l are you talking about ? overdosed ? got hep c ? hiv ? from what ? you think people get hiv and hep C from heroin powder bought from top dealers ?
-
what the hel;l are you talking about ? overdosed ? got hep c ? hiv ? from what ? you think people get hiv and hep C from heroin powder bought from top dealers ?
no, i'm saying the drug prohibition laws are based on the fact that people do. which is why its so contradictory.
the feds number 1 priority(supposedly) and the point to the laws they uphold is to protect the public from the harm illegal drugs do.
yet they've sat there and watched millions of drug deals take place and done nothing. if protecting the public from the harm these drugs supposedly do then they should have pulled the plug on day 1. and in doing so would have 'saved' the public from the 'harm'. but instead they allowed it to go on so they could gather evidence on dpr. obviously catching dpr was so much more important to them than reducing the harm, which is apparently supposed to be the reason why the laws are there in the first place.
and anyway, to answer your question directly, if somebody shares a needle with an infected person, then it doesn't matter where the heroin was sourced. but as far as i'm concerned that's besides the point and is down to the individual.
-
what the hel;l are you talking about ? overdosed ? got hep c ? hiv ? from what ? you think people get hiv and hep C from heroin powder bought from top dealers ?
no, i'm saying the drug prohibition laws are based on the fact that people do. which is why its so contradictory.
the feds number 1 priority(supposedly) and the point to the laws they uphold is to protect the public from the harm illegal drugs do.
yet they've sat there and watched millions of drug deals take place and done nothing. if protecting the public from the harm these drugs supposedly do then they should have pulled the plug on day 1. and in doing so would have 'saved' the public from the 'harm'. but instead they allowed it to go on so they could gather evidence on dpr. obviously catching dpr was so much more important to them than reducing the harm, which is apparently supposed to be the reason why the laws are there in the first place.
and anyway, to answer your question directly, if somebody shares a needle with an infected person, then it doesn't matter where the heroin was sourced. but as far as i'm concerned that's besides the point and is down to the individual.
it's not about people it's more about the money going to black market.
-
it's not about people it's more about the money going to black market.
but it ani't tho, or at least shouldn't be. i've just explained some more in this thread
http://dkn255hz262ypmii.onion/index.php?topic=218264.msg1590631#msg1590631
the feds really have fucked up here. i hope they get some very difficult questions put to them in the near future.