|
Yesterday a friend received a letter in mail, it contained a controlled substance smoked and enjoyed by countless of millions, it arrived from half the world away. The drug was made extremely flat and vacuum sealed and put in this letter, it was only about as thick as two coins but contained about 8 grams, it looked like a regular personal letter, even smaller than most. he paid using Bitcoins and it was mailed to an address unassociated with him, and it arrived in about a week.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silk_Road_(marketplace)
This is an interesting phenomenon and he has ordered those bicycle blotters and many other things successfully, even at great prices.
Now why is this a controversy? Anyone can get their hands on drugs now, even the hard to get drugs. How will they win the war on drugs with this going on? Dealers sit at home and deal their drugs anonymously with the mail.
It is amazingly curious, and it is growing, the amount of vendors supposedly increase all the time and the amount of drugs sold is as well.
I find it amazing personally, as I'm completely against the patrolling of peoples bodies.
  
|
United Kingdom14103 Posts
I had a friend at school constantly telling me about it, it's been around for a bit. I don't really have anything to say about it except good for them.
|
|
|
Yeah it's been around since february 2011, however, recently, during the last year it has grown and vendors are all over the globe. I'm assuming it will only spread more and more. Curious how the politicians will try to deal with this (probably try to kill bitcoins, which will then be replaced by another currency that is the same, if they succeed)
|
On July 30 2013 12:17 Torte de Lini wrote:
whats the controversy?
that anyone can get any drug, even heroin or mdma etc easily delivered with the mail.
(note, it is a greater controversy in nations that have less drug tolerance and widespread recreational use than say the united states)
|
Its great.
1. Sellers have feedback like ebay so you know they arent shitty or going to poison you or rip you off.
2. Reputable sellers actually sell the drug they advertise at good quality, no more getting mysterious tablets from some fuckhead in an alley and hoping for the best. I'm not putting anything in my body I'm not damn sure exactly what it is.
3. Easy and cheap, you can get anything you ever dreamed of.
4. You wont get shanked by fuckheads in an alley. You don't even have to interact with fuckheads in an alley.
|
United Kingdom14103 Posts
On July 30 2013 12:39 sob3k wrote:
Its great.
1. Sellers have feedback like ebay so you know they arent shitty or going to poison you
2. Reputable sellers actually sell the drug they advertise at good quality, no more getting mysterious tablets from some fuckhead in an alley and hoping for the best. I'm not putting anything in my body I'm not damn sure exactly what it is.
3. Easy and cheap, you can get anything you ever dreamed of.
4. You wont get shanked by fuckheads in an alley. You don't even have to interact with fuckheads in an alley.
TL;DR: No Fuckheads.
|
Mail. Mail. MAIL. Mail means federal government, and drugs in mail means federal prison. Careful.
|
On July 30 2013 13:02 Elegy wrote:
Mail. Mail. MAIL. Mail means federal government, and drugs in mail means federal prison. Careful.
uneducated, first of all they cannot prove it was you who ordered it if it gets confiscated, unless they do controlled deliveries (they only do that with very large amounts, which lets be honest, few are going to order)
Read up on it, success rate is extremely good when it comes to domestic shipments in all nations if the seller is any good at packaging (you can see if he is on his feedback)
|
You can be against patrolling people's bodies all you want, but that argument only holds water if you're only hurting yourself. By buying illegal drugs, you're helping to support what are more often than not very unscrupulous groups responsible for innumerable atrocities. Then there's the issue of you cashing out on government-run health care, which basically means your retarded habit ends up costing other people a lot of money.
|
On July 30 2013 13:53 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:
You can be against patrolling people's bodies all you want, but that argument only holds water if you're only hurting yourself. By buying illegal drugs, you're helping to support what are more often than not very unscrupulous groups responsible for innumerable atrocities. Then there's the issue of you cashing out on government-run health care, which basically means your retarded habit ends up costing other people a lot of money.
So fat people should be considered criminals, after all, they are often supporters of terrible fast food companies who earn money on other peoples unhealthy living. And how much does obesity cost government-run health care? Yeah, I thought so.
And I disagree, patrolling peoples bodies is wrong, you cannot assume that peoples use is hurting their health as it is common to lead a normal life when using recreational drugs. You can also not assume that you are supporting organized crime, as many growers are just people like you and I, they grow to feed the demand. The laws make them criminals and organized, otherwise they would simply be farmers. I consider them farmers. It's the laws that are responsible for the current situation, not the drug or its users, it was much better before these laws for everyone.
These terrible assumptions you make are what frighten me, that we should judge all people by the worst case scenarios, that is pure idiocy.
|
On July 30 2013 13:02 Elegy wrote:
Mail. Mail. MAIL. Mail means federal government, and drugs in mail means federal prison. Careful.
Thats why SR can only work well with bitcoin and Tor. The purchase of the goods cannot be linked to any individual, and even if they were to search your mail (doesn't happen), they can't reasonably prosecute you. Its not illegal to receive a package. Otherwise I could just order a bunch of crack to someone I didn't likes address and put them in jail.
On July 30 2013 13:53 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:
You can be against patrolling people's bodies all you want, but that argument only holds water if you're only hurting yourself. By buying illegal drugs, you're helping to support what are more often than not very unscrupulous groups responsible for innumerable atrocities. Then there's the issue of you cashing out on government-run health care, which basically means your retarded habit ends up costing other people a lot of money.
Weak argument. I'd be much more morally worried about what the government is doing with my tax dollars than the people you would purchase from on SR. Most sellers are more on the eccentric chemist side of things than the mexican cartel side. Not to even get into the arguments over to what degree a buyer is morally responsible for whatever the recipient of their cash does with it. I would be no more worried that my money is going to nefarious pursuits buying off good sellers on SR than I would buying from any other business. Not to mention the fact that if these groups had more legitimacy (which is benefitted by regulated sales as we are starting to see with SR), they wouldn't be any shadier than any other pharmaceutical company. In reality there is no way to make a market legitimate without demonstrating widespread demand.
As for the government health care argument, thats a whole nother can of worms that really has nothing to do with drugs. Ignoring the fact that a large amount of the drugs illegally sold have little to no demonstrable negative health effects. Its a very slippery slope to declare doing any unhealthy activity to be immoral on this basis. Should overeating or highway driving etc be illegal just because it has a risk of increasing your medical costs? Should not exercising regularly be illegal? Certainly by that argument consumption of alcohol and cigarettes would be massively more criminal than LSD or weed.
|
There are still a myriad of hoops to jump through. This will get more popular than it is now (It's already pretty popular) and the feds will crack down on it. They know it's happening, the FBI isn't dumb, and the deepweb is on their radar. However, as Sob3k said, this makes things so much better for any drug user; the TL;DR = no fuckheads is so true, and I don't even do drugs to know how true that statement is. Honestly, people will do the drugs they want to do, it takes a smart person to know what drugs are bad to do, which ones will ruin ones life, and what drugs they can intake if they want at minimal cost to their body.
|
On July 30 2013 13:53 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:
You can be against patrolling people's bodies all you want, but that argument only holds water if you're only hurting yourself. By buying illegal drugs, you're helping to support what are more often than not very unscrupulous groups responsible for innumerable atrocities. Then there's the issue of you cashing out on government-run health care, which basically means your retarded habit ends up costing other people a lot of money.
Yes, as long as drugs are illegal, you´re very likely to support organized crime, which is involved at some point in the business.
|
On July 30 2013 15:01 Daswollvieh wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2013 13:53 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:
You can be against patrolling people's bodies all you want, but that argument only holds water if you're only hurting yourself. By buying illegal drugs, you're helping to support what are more often than not very unscrupulous groups responsible for innumerable atrocities. Then there's the issue of you cashing out on government-run health care, which basically means your retarded habit ends up costing other people a lot of money. Yes, as long as drugs are illegal, you´re very likely to support organized crime, which is involved at some point in the business.
Thats the nice thing about SR though. It works kind of like the music industry.
In the past it was very difficult to sell drugs because in order to do it reliably you need to be able to set up a huge distribution network in order to move them into and out of countries, then you have to have another big distribution net in order to get them out onto the street where they are sold. Doing this manually like traditional drug sales means you need to involve a ton of people to sell by hand, and moving shipments is going to involve smuggling in a car or airplane or ship (which encourages moving large amounts when you have an opportunity). Both of these things involve more and more people doing illegal things, which is how these big syndicates and cartels were created to deal with managing all these criminals responsible for flying aircraft, manual distribution, protecting stock and dealers etc. Its the same reason these huge sleazy moneygrubbing music labels were created to manage the traditional distribution and creation of music.
Now with the internet being used, its having the same effect on the drug market that it did on the music industry. Its no longer necessary for a drug producer to involve all these middleman criminals, and the lack of middlemen makes it unnecessary to produce such huge volumes to take advantage of economies of scale. Now, when you can sell to anyone with the internet just through the mail, you don't need this huge management structure and all the negative shit that comes along with it. You don't have to employ street criminals, and you don't have to employ violent enforcers to make sure these street criminals aren't stealing your money. You just make a batch and sell it directly to the consumer. Silkroad is basically like the Beatport or Bandcamp of drugs. It makes the entire process not only safer and easier for the buyer, but also makes it much safer and easier for the seller, and therefore safer and easier for society as a whole. We won't have to worry about getting caught up in driveby shootings or turf wars, because they serve no purpose when you are doing distributed internet sales. It doesn't have to be organized crime anymore, it can just be a dude in his basement with a chemistry set.
|
But you cannot know whether it´s a good guy in his basement, or some criminal organization using this as another way to distribute their product. It´s like the girls on the internet, they are not really into it, but it feels good to think so. 
|
On July 30 2013 15:30 Daswollvieh wrote:But you cannot know whether it´s a good guy in his basement, or some criminal organization using this as another way to distribute their product. It´s like the girls on the internet, they are not really into it, but it feels good to think so.
Sure, never can be certain. Still, advocating the solution to organized drug crime is "don't buy drugs" is pretty similar to advocating the solution to STDs is abstinence. In reality on a large scale its completely impractical, and looking back on the entirety of human history i'd say we are about as likely to stop doing drugs as we are to stop fucking. The only way real change in either field has ever been accomplished is to recognize that that the activity is going to occur, and to encourage safer and more mutually beneficial methods of doing it.
TLDR: Silkroad is like drug condoms.
|
On July 30 2013 13:53 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:
You can be against patrolling people's bodies all you want, but that argument only holds water if you're only hurting yourself. By buying illegal drugs, you're helping to support what are more often than not very unscrupulous groups responsible for innumerable atrocities. Then there's the issue of you cashing out on government-run health care, which basically means your retarded habit ends up costing other people a lot of money.
The problem with this argument is that these unscrupulous groups wouldn't exist if drugs were legal. When someone gets strung out on heroine or meth its very sad and a terrible thing, but you have to wonder if making drugs illegal is actually helping anybody. It certainly doesn't seem to be hurting the supply.
|
On July 30 2013 15:47 sob3k wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2013 15:30 Daswollvieh wrote:But you cannot know whether it´s a good guy in his basement, or some criminal organization using this as another way to distribute their product. It´s like the girls on the internet, they are not really into it, but it feels good to think so. Sure, never can be certain. Still, advocating the solution to organized drug crime is "don't buy drugs" is pretty similar to advocating the solution to STDs is abstinence. In reality on a large scale its completely impractical, and looking back on the entirety of human history i'd say we are about as likely to stop doing drugs as we are to stop fucking. The only way real change in either field has ever been accomplished is to recognize that that the activity is going to occur, and to encourage safer and more mutually beneficial methods of doing it. TLDR: Silkroad is like drug condoms.
I agree that outlawing something that is a personal choice makes no sense. However, outlawing stuff that gets you hooked as quickly as it destroys you, basically robbing you of your free will, absolutely makes sense, because it protects the weak, who cannot evaluate the risk. That said, pot being illegal makes absolutely no sense.
The comparison to condoms would only fit, if condoms, at any point, were largely supplied by criminal organizations. Right now, you cannot tell if you´re not supporting a system of violence, except you made the stuff yourself. In a way, it would be like trusting a fashion label that they produced their products in fair working conditions, without having independent monitoring.
On July 30 2013 17:03 mothergoose729 wrote:
The problem with this argument is that these unscrupulous groups wouldn't exist if drugs were legal. When someone gets strung out on heroine or meth its very sad and a terrible thing, but you have to wonder if making drugs illegal is actually helping anybody. It certainly doesn't seem to be hurting the supply.
That is no argument either. Sure, if the Soviets hadn´t invaded Afghanistan, then the Taliban probably wouldn´t exist. But they do exist and the Soviets retreating did not make the go away. Drug trafficking is so ridiculously big that the legalization of drugs in the whole world would not deal with the problem. I know that the Netherlands have a more relaxed drug policy, and in Prague you can get even hard drugs legally now, but I doubt that dealt with the criminality.
|
On July 30 2013 18:03 Daswollvieh wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2013 15:47 sob3k wrote:On July 30 2013 15:30 Daswollvieh wrote:But you cannot know whether it´s a good guy in his basement, or some criminal organization using this as another way to distribute their product. It´s like the girls on the internet, they are not really into it, but it feels good to think so. Sure, never can be certain. Still, advocating the solution to organized drug crime is "don't buy drugs" is pretty similar to advocating the solution to STDs is abstinence. In reality on a large scale its completely impractical, and looking back on the entirety of human history i'd say we are about as likely to stop doing drugs as we are to stop fucking. The only way real change in either field has ever been accomplished is to recognize that that the activity is going to occur, and to encourage safer and more mutually beneficial methods of doing it. TLDR: Silkroad is like drug condoms. I agree that outlawing something that is a personal choice makes no sense. However, outlawing stuff that gets you hooked as quickly as it destroys you, basically robbing you of your free will, absolutely makes sense, because it protects the weak, who cannot evaluate the risk. That said, pot being illegal makes absolutely no sense. The comparison to condoms would only fit, if condoms, at any point, were largely supplied by criminal organizations. Right now, you cannot tell if you´re not supporting a system of violence, except you made the stuff yourself. In a way, it would be like trusting a fashion label that they produced their products in fair working conditions, without having independent monitoring.
In many countries that is exactly what occured, including the US.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/pill/peopleevents/e_comstock.html
|
On July 30 2013 18:09 sob3k wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2013 18:03 Daswollvieh wrote:On July 30 2013 15:47 sob3k wrote:On July 30 2013 15:30 Daswollvieh wrote:But you cannot know whether it´s a good guy in his basement, or some criminal organization using this as another way to distribute their product. It´s like the girls on the internet, they are not really into it, but it feels good to think so. Sure, never can be certain. Still, advocating the solution to organized drug crime is "don't buy drugs" is pretty similar to advocating the solution to STDs is abstinence. In reality on a large scale its completely impractical, and looking back on the entirety of human history i'd say we are about as likely to stop doing drugs as we are to stop fucking. The only way real change in either field has ever been accomplished is to recognize that that the activity is going to occur, and to encourage safer and more mutually beneficial methods of doing it. TLDR: Silkroad is like drug condoms. I agree that outlawing something that is a personal choice makes no sense. However, outlawing stuff that gets you hooked as quickly as it destroys you, basically robbing you of your free will, absolutely makes sense, because it protects the weak, who cannot evaluate the risk. That said, pot being illegal makes absolutely no sense. The comparison to condoms would only fit, if condoms, at any point, were largely supplied by criminal organizations. Right now, you cannot tell if you´re not supporting a system of violence, except you made the stuff yourself. In a way, it would be like trusting a fashion label that they produced their products in fair working conditions, without having independent monitoring. In many countries that is exactly what occured, including the US. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/pill/peopleevents/e_comstock.html
That is kind of hilarious, thanks. 
But illegal contraception hardly was a global billion dollar business that established criminal organizations of power beyond any state´s control.
|
On July 30 2013 18:03 Daswollvieh wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2013 17:03 mothergoose729 wrote:
The problem with this argument is that these unscrupulous groups wouldn't exist if drugs were legal. When someone gets strung out on heroine or meth its very sad and a terrible thing, but you have to wonder if making drugs illegal is actually helping anybody. It certainly doesn't seem to be hurting the supply. That is no argument either. Sure, if the Soviets hadn´t invaded Afghanistan, then the Taliban probably wouldn´t exist. But they do exist and the Soviets retreating did not make the go away. Drug trafficking is so ridiculously big that the legalization of drugs in the whole world would not deal with the problem. I know that the Netherlands have a more relaxed drug policy, and in Prague you can get even hard drugs legally now, but I doubt that dealt with the criminality.
The Taliban is a political party, of course it didn't go away.
Legalization of drugs in the whole world would definitely remove the criminal element to production and trafficking, because it wouldn't be criminal anymore. Thats the whole point. You don't see fast food restaurants executing government officials. You don't see breweries bombing rival stores and gunfighting in the streets.
If you have any doubt over the reduction in organized crime with drug legalization just take a look at the Prohibition era in the US, where a nationwide ban on alcohol singlehandedly raised the crime rate in major cities 25% in a single year and boosted the lovely mafia gangsters to such a level of power and wealth that they are instantly recognizable worldwide even now.
And then we got to see this all reversed when the laws were finally repealed. Its a pretty strong example.
Its also pretty appropriate that you do mention the Taliban, as they are almost entirely funded by the illegal farming of poppies in order to produce opium.
|
SWIM couldn't get psychedelics from anywhere but then he found Silk Road. SWIM was a narcissist, had trouble understanding people and didn't know why sometimes he would make people angry. After trying acid and shrooms he began to feel emotions he'd never felt before, and really learned a lot about himself and other people. He understood how to empathize much better with people, he took an interest in poetry and love, and practically became a new and much better person.
SWIM took a lot of these psychadelics for a few months purchasing from SR every couple of weeks, but had decided enough is a enough and stopped taking them, he is back to his more emotionless self, but still makes his best effort to take what he learned from these experiences and be a much better person.
|
lol. that's how all drugs go through the mail, not just from silk road. YOu ever see a lb of weed, its just a huge brick. also lol, getting 8 grams from silk road isn't a lot. Usually they sell in 14/28g sizes
|
This certainly won't break the system as the OP suggests. If this actually becomes an issue (the volume increases to where the Feds take notice) then it is so easy to stop. I'd imagine most dogs can probably easily sniff it out but even if it's so well vacuumed sealed that they can't (highly unlikely) then just off the top of my head I can think of 3 or 4 different ways to easily (and quite honestly relatively cheaply) screen the mail to detect the drugs.
|
On July 30 2013 23:09 Race is Terran wrote:
lol. that's how all drugs go through the mail, not just from silk road. YOu ever see a lb of weed, its just a huge brick. also lol, getting 8 grams from silk road isn't a lot. Usually they sell in 14/28g sizes
Eh, I just gave an example, and I never said it was a lot, he could have ordered an ounce as well.
|
On July 30 2013 23:52 FryBender wrote:
This certainly won't break the system as the OP suggests. If this actually becomes an issue (the volume increases to where the Feds take notice) then it is so easy to stop. I'd imagine most dogs can probably easily sniff it out but even if it's so well vacuumed sealed that they can't (highly unlikely) then just off the top of my head I can think of 3 or 4 different ways to easily (and quite honestly relatively cheaply) screen the mail to detect the drugs.
Yeah, now apply that to all domestic mail in the united states and imagine the cost and time that is needed. Sorry man, but even customs doesn't have a chance at taking even a fraction of the drugs going through the mail. And domestic? not a chance, must be terribly packaged if so.
|
On July 31 2013 00:05 MarklarMarklarr wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2013 23:52 FryBender wrote:
This certainly won't break the system as the OP suggests. If this actually becomes an issue (the volume increases to where the Feds take notice) then it is so easy to stop. I'd imagine most dogs can probably easily sniff it out but even if it's so well vacuumed sealed that they can't (highly unlikely) then just off the top of my head I can think of 3 or 4 different ways to easily (and quite honestly relatively cheaply) screen the mail to detect the drugs. Yeah, now apply that to all domestic mail in the united states and imagine the cost and time that is needed. Sorry man, but even customs doesn't have a chance at taking even a fraction of the drugs going through the mail. And domestic? not a chance, must be terribly packaged if so.
Most mail already goes through different types of screenings and sortings it wouldn't change any of the processes to add another screener in there. As far as cost goes like I said a DART MS (a chemical analysis insturment) is not that expensive that I can't see the Feds not being able to put it into the major sorting hubs. And you don't have to get all of them. If they can even intercept 50% of them then the price of the drugs just doubled (not to mention the fact that they now have evidence on both the sender and the receiver). This is silly to sink it's some sort of drug delivery revolution
Internationally this is already done. That's why you're not getting bomb and ricin packages from Al-Quida
|
they allready photograph and scan every maildelivery, what makes you think they couldnt control the package if they wanted to?
The only reason they dont is because they can get muuuuuuuuuuuuuch bigger fish with not as much effort.
|
the only controversy is that our government still wages this stupid war on drugs, pissing away money when they could be profiting off the taxation of weed. so long as it is illegal, there will be a black market. this is just what the black market looks like in 2013
|
On July 31 2013 00:18 FryBender wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2013 00:05 MarklarMarklarr wrote:On July 30 2013 23:52 FryBender wrote:
This certainly won't break the system as the OP suggests. If this actually becomes an issue (the volume increases to where the Feds take notice) then it is so easy to stop. I'd imagine most dogs can probably easily sniff it out but even if it's so well vacuumed sealed that they can't (highly unlikely) then just off the top of my head I can think of 3 or 4 different ways to easily (and quite honestly relatively cheaply) screen the mail to detect the drugs. Yeah, now apply that to all domestic mail in the united states and imagine the cost and time that is needed. Sorry man, but even customs doesn't have a chance at taking even a fraction of the drugs going through the mail. And domestic? not a chance, must be terribly packaged if so. Most mail already goes through different types of screenings and sortings it wouldn't change any of the processes to add another screener in there. As far as cost goes like I said a DART MS (a chemical analysis insturment) is not that expensive that I can't see the Feds not being able to put it into the major sorting hubs. And you don't have to get all of them. If they can even intercept 50% of them then the price of the drugs just doubled (not to mention the fact that they now have evidence on both the sender and the receiver). This is silly to sink it's some sort of drug delivery revolution Internationally this is already done. That's why you're not getting bomb and ricin packages from Al-Quida
Sweden/Norway/Australia has the most tough customs in the world, even there, where Australia scans most packages they estimate a 80-90% rate of going through, the 10-20% not getting through being badly packaged..
I'm sorry but you live in a fairy tale world, reading the silk road forums you will find postal workers around the globe telling of their drug screening procedure, it's always described as pathetic and insufficient. If they were to apply your method the cost of all mail would at least double if not more, and the amount of workers and time of delivery would increase exponential amount.
|
On July 31 2013 00:30 MarklarMarklarr wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2013 00:18 FryBender wrote:On July 31 2013 00:05 MarklarMarklarr wrote:On July 30 2013 23:52 FryBender wrote:
This certainly won't break the system as the OP suggests. If this actually becomes an issue (the volume increases to where the Feds take notice) then it is so easy to stop. I'd imagine most dogs can probably easily sniff it out but even if it's so well vacuumed sealed that they can't (highly unlikely) then just off the top of my head I can think of 3 or 4 different ways to easily (and quite honestly relatively cheaply) screen the mail to detect the drugs. Yeah, now apply that to all domestic mail in the united states and imagine the cost and time that is needed. Sorry man, but even customs doesn't have a chance at taking even a fraction of the drugs going through the mail. And domestic? not a chance, must be terribly packaged if so. Most mail already goes through different types of screenings and sortings it wouldn't change any of the processes to add another screener in there. As far as cost goes like I said a DART MS (a chemical analysis insturment) is not that expensive that I can't see the Feds not being able to put it into the major sorting hubs. And you don't have to get all of them. If they can even intercept 50% of them then the price of the drugs just doubled (not to mention the fact that they now have evidence on both the sender and the receiver). This is silly to sink it's some sort of drug delivery revolution Internationally this is already done. That's why you're not getting bomb and ricin packages from Al-Quida Sweden/Norway/Australia has the most tough customs in the world, even there, where Australia scans most packages they estimate a 80-90% rate of going through, the 10-20% not getting through being badly packaged.. I'm sorry but you live in a fairy tale world, reading the silk road forums you will find postal workers around the globe telling of their drug screening procedure, it's always described as pathetic and insufficient. If they were to apply your method the cost of all mail would at least double if not more, and the amount of workers and time of delivery would increase exponential amount.
The only reason right now why it's not done is that they don't care. Some kid stealing his moms credit card to buy an ounce of anything is useless to the DEA. They also don't care about some 2-bit dealer licking stamps all day long. If the cartels would start using this (which they never would because they're not stupid enough to give over the possesion of their product in mass amounts to the people who are actively searching for them) then the DEA would pay for the screening machines. As I said in the post above it would not increase mail delivery by one bit since it's already automated for sorting. Screening something that's the thickness of 2 coins is easy anyways since most bills and such is much thinner. Chemically speaking it is extremely easy to separate out if there is only paper inside an envelope or something else (as I said before I can think of three things of the top of my head while actually doing zero research into this because I'm an analytical chemist and that's what I do for a living). And if it is something else it can then go for a second round of screening to actually see if there are any drugs in there. I just thought of a system in less then 5 minutes that is feasible, does not slow down the process, and is relatively cheap (the whole thing would probably cost 50-100K depending on the technology you use). Now you seriously think that spending 10-20 million (out of a yearly budget of 2.8 billion dollars for the DEA) would be a big deal in order to not only completely shut this whole thing down but also get easily traceable evidence that would lead to both the supplier and the customer? If the cartels are involved that's chump change for the DEA when compared to the money they spend on actual operations that yield way less results. So no this doesn't change anything.
And the most ironic thing about your post is that I'm the one who is looking at this with real world experience while you rely on all the mail carriers who are posting on the forums that actively promote this thing for your "facts" and I'm the one living in a fairy tale word.
|
On July 31 2013 00:57 FryBender wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2013 00:30 MarklarMarklarr wrote:On July 31 2013 00:18 FryBender wrote:On July 31 2013 00:05 MarklarMarklarr wrote:On July 30 2013 23:52 FryBender wrote:
This certainly won't break the system as the OP suggests. If this actually becomes an issue (the volume increases to where the Feds take notice) then it is so easy to stop. I'd imagine most dogs can probably easily sniff it out but even if it's so well vacuumed sealed that they can't (highly unlikely) then just off the top of my head I can think of 3 or 4 different ways to easily (and quite honestly relatively cheaply) screen the mail to detect the drugs. Yeah, now apply that to all domestic mail in the united states and imagine the cost and time that is needed. Sorry man, but even customs doesn't have a chance at taking even a fraction of the drugs going through the mail. And domestic? not a chance, must be terribly packaged if so. Most mail already goes through different types of screenings and sortings it wouldn't change any of the processes to add another screener in there. As far as cost goes like I said a DART MS (a chemical analysis insturment) is not that expensive that I can't see the Feds not being able to put it into the major sorting hubs. And you don't have to get all of them. If they can even intercept 50% of them then the price of the drugs just doubled (not to mention the fact that they now have evidence on both the sender and the receiver). This is silly to sink it's some sort of drug delivery revolution Internationally this is already done. That's why you're not getting bomb and ricin packages from Al-Quida Sweden/Norway/Australia has the most tough customs in the world, even there, where Australia scans most packages they estimate a 80-90% rate of going through, the 10-20% not getting through being badly packaged.. I'm sorry but you live in a fairy tale world, reading the silk road forums you will find postal workers around the globe telling of their drug screening procedure, it's always described as pathetic and insufficient. If they were to apply your method the cost of all mail would at least double if not more, and the amount of workers and time of delivery would increase exponential amount. The only reason right now why it's not done is that they don't care. Some kid stealing his moms credit card to buy an ounce of anything is useless to the DEA. They also don't care about some 2-bit dealer licking stamps all day long. If the cartels would start using this (which they never would because they're not stupid enough to give over the possesion of their product in mass amounts to the people who are actively searching for them) then the DEA would pay for the screening machines. As I said in the post above it would not increase mail delivery by one bit since it's already automated for sorting. Screening something that's the thickness of 2 coins is easy anyways since most bills and such is much thinner. Chemically speaking it is extremely easy to separate out if there is only paper inside an envelope or something else (as I said before I can think of three things of the top of my head while actually doing zero research into this because I'm an analytical chemist and that's what I do for a living). And if it is something else it can then go for a second round of screening to actually see if there are any drugs in there. I just thought of a system in less then 5 minutes that is feasible, does not slow down the process, and is relatively cheap (the whole thing would probably cost 50-100K depending on the technology you use). Now you seriously think that spending 10-20 million (out of a yearly budget of 2.8 billion dollars for the DEA) would be a big deal in order to not only completely shut this whole thing down but also get easily traceable evidence that would lead to both the supplier and the customer? If the cartels are involved that's chump change for the DEA when compared to the money they spend on actual operations that yield way less results. So no this doesn't change anything. And the most ironic thing about your post is that I'm the one who is looking at this with real world experience while you rely on all the mail carriers who are posting on the forums that actively promote this thing for your "facts" and I'm the one living in a fairy tale word.
Mylar is being used by many these days and it protects the package from scanning. (australia for example scans a lot of the mail for organic material, but it has been shown to not be possible to scan even close to all mail)
Note, your concept presented here has been refuted all over the silk road forums with thousands upon thousands of members, so I'm not buying it. Go try sell this idea if you believe in it so much.
And no drug cartels won't use this system as its not a good method to move large amounts. Small time criminals yes, not the big dogs.
Edit: Also, there's enormous amounts of legal organic material being shipped, such as Tea, spices and so on. Due to this, the system is even less feasible.
|
The Silk Road is not cheap.....
|
On July 31 2013 01:54 farvacola wrote:
The Silk Road is not cheap.....
Depends on where you live. also, it is getting cheaper as more vendors show up. competition you know.
And many would rather pay a bit extra and get it home delivered with feedback on the product before purchase (many of the sellers of LSD gets reviewed and confirmed by experts if the drug is advertised at the given amount and that it doesn't have any other drugs in it.
|
On July 31 2013 01:58 MarklarMarklarr wrote:Depends on where you live. also, it is getting cheaper as more vendors show up. competition you know. And many would rather pay a bit extra and get it home delivered with feedback on the product before purchase (many of the sellers of LSD gets reviewed and confirmed by experts if the drug is advertised at the given amount and that it doesn't have any other drugs in it.
And how do you know that they are "experts"? In fact, how do you know anything being advertised is legit? The answer is you don't, you're buying drugs on the deep web.
|
On July 31 2013 02:01 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2013 01:58 MarklarMarklarr wrote:On July 31 2013 01:54 farvacola wrote:
The Silk Road is not cheap..... Depends on where you live. also, it is getting cheaper as more vendors show up. competition you know. And many would rather pay a bit extra and get it home delivered with feedback on the product before purchase (many of the sellers of LSD gets reviewed and confirmed by experts if the drug is advertised at the given amount and that it doesn't have any other drugs in it. And how do you know that they are "experts"? In fact, how do you know anything being advertised is legit? The answer is you don't, you're buying drugs on the deep web.
Vendors get dissected by the community if they are shown to sell bad products, there's always a couple of guys who do testing on products, with photos and proof to back it up. In many countries there are also places where you can give a sample of a drug and they will test it for you, this is often done and any fishy results is shown.
It's by far more information than you are ever going to get on the street when buying drugs.
|
On July 31 2013 02:06 MarklarMarklarr wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2013 02:01 farvacola wrote:On July 31 2013 01:58 MarklarMarklarr wrote:On July 31 2013 01:54 farvacola wrote:
The Silk Road is not cheap..... Depends on where you live. also, it is getting cheaper as more vendors show up. competition you know. And many would rather pay a bit extra and get it home delivered with feedback on the product before purchase (many of the sellers of LSD gets reviewed and confirmed by experts if the drug is advertised at the given amount and that it doesn't have any other drugs in it. And how do you know that they are "experts"? In fact, how do you know anything being advertised is legit? The answer is you don't, you're buying drugs on the deep web. Vendors get dissected by the community if they are shown to sell bad products, there's always a couple of guys who do testing on products, with photos and proof to back it up. It's by far more information than you are ever going to get on the street when buying drugs.
And how would you know this? Are your experiences buying drugs offline varied and involved enough to really say such a thing, or maybe you've only dealt with bad drug dealers?
|
On July 31 2013 02:08 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2013 02:06 MarklarMarklarr wrote:On July 31 2013 02:01 farvacola wrote:On July 31 2013 01:58 MarklarMarklarr wrote:On July 31 2013 01:54 farvacola wrote:
The Silk Road is not cheap..... Depends on where you live. also, it is getting cheaper as more vendors show up. competition you know. And many would rather pay a bit extra and get it home delivered with feedback on the product before purchase (many of the sellers of LSD gets reviewed and confirmed by experts if the drug is advertised at the given amount and that it doesn't have any other drugs in it. And how do you know that they are "experts"? In fact, how do you know anything being advertised is legit? The answer is you don't, you're buying drugs on the deep web. Vendors get dissected by the community if they are shown to sell bad products, there's always a couple of guys who do testing on products, with photos and proof to back it up. It's by far more information than you are ever going to get on the street when buying drugs. And how would you know this? Are your experiences buying drugs offline varied and involved enough to really say such a thing, or maybe you've only dealt with bad drug dealers?
A drug dealer isn't going to be giving you papers showing the product has been tested to only contain the said substance.. but of course, there are drug dealers who only have quality products. However, on SR trusted vendors have many buyers who have done just that, and share it.
|
On July 31 2013 02:12 MarklarMarklarr wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2013 02:08 farvacola wrote:On July 31 2013 02:06 MarklarMarklarr wrote:On July 31 2013 02:01 farvacola wrote:On July 31 2013 01:58 MarklarMarklarr wrote:On July 31 2013 01:54 farvacola wrote:
The Silk Road is not cheap..... Depends on where you live. also, it is getting cheaper as more vendors show up. competition you know. And many would rather pay a bit extra and get it home delivered with feedback on the product before purchase (many of the sellers of LSD gets reviewed and confirmed by experts if the drug is advertised at the given amount and that it doesn't have any other drugs in it. And how do you know that they are "experts"? In fact, how do you know anything being advertised is legit? The answer is you don't, you're buying drugs on the deep web. Vendors get dissected by the community if they are shown to sell bad products, there's always a couple of guys who do testing on products, with photos and proof to back it up. It's by far more information than you are ever going to get on the street when buying drugs. And how would you know this? Are your experiences buying drugs offline varied and involved enough to really say such a thing, or maybe you've only dealt with bad drug dealers? A drug dealer isn't going to be giving you papers showing the product has been tested to only contain the said substance.
All I'm sayin is that some definitely do
|
On July 30 2013 18:03 Daswollvieh wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2013 15:47 sob3k wrote:On July 30 2013 15:30 Daswollvieh wrote:But you cannot know whether it´s a good guy in his basement, or some criminal organization using this as another way to distribute their product. It´s like the girls on the internet, they are not really into it, but it feels good to think so. Sure, never can be certain. Still, advocating the solution to organized drug crime is "don't buy drugs" is pretty similar to advocating the solution to STDs is abstinence. In reality on a large scale its completely impractical, and looking back on the entirety of human history i'd say we are about as likely to stop doing drugs as we are to stop fucking. The only way real change in either field has ever been accomplished is to recognize that that the activity is going to occur, and to encourage safer and more mutually beneficial methods of doing it. TLDR: Silkroad is like drug condoms. I agree that outlawing something that is a personal choice makes no sense. However, outlawing stuff that gets you hooked as quickly as it destroys you, basically robbing you of your free will, absolutely makes sense, because it protects the weak, who cannot evaluate the risk. That said, pot being illegal makes absolutely no sense. The comparison to condoms would only fit, if condoms, at any point, were largely supplied by criminal organizations. Right now, you cannot tell if you´re not supporting a system of violence, except you made the stuff yourself. In a way, it would be like trusting a fashion label that they produced their products in fair working conditions, without having independent monitoring. Show nested quote +On July 30 2013 17:03 mothergoose729 wrote:
The problem with this argument is that these unscrupulous groups wouldn't exist if drugs were legal. When someone gets strung out on heroine or meth its very sad and a terrible thing, but you have to wonder if making drugs illegal is actually helping anybody. It certainly doesn't seem to be hurting the supply. That is no argument either. Sure, if the Soviets hadn´t invaded Afghanistan, then the Taliban probably wouldn´t exist. But they do exist and the Soviets retreating did not make the go away. Drug trafficking is so ridiculously big that the legalization of drugs in the whole world would not deal with the problem. I know that the Netherlands have a more relaxed drug policy, and in Prague you can get even hard drugs legally now, but I doubt that dealt with the criminality.
In amerstdam many drugs are legal to sell, and a select few drugs are illegal to sell but not illegal to consume. That is called decriminalizing. I have read that amsterdam has some of the lowest levels of illicit drug use in the world, despite that fact that you can literally smoke crack in the street. Imagine if herion and meth where legal but high regulated. Laws could be enacted: no advertisments, can't be displayed, both users and dealers must register themselves, ect. The addicts then would be out in the open instead of hiding. Money that goes to funding the drug war could be diverted to recovery services and wellfare programs, or hell could pay of the national debt and fuck the addicts, either way it would be better spent. I don't claim to know the answers or whatever, but just about anything seems to be more effective than what we have now. Anybody can get meth or cociane or whatever if they have the money and they ask around with the right people. Criminalizing has done nothing to curb the supply. And there will always be addicts because you can't legislate behavior. We all know this to be true... what then, if anything, is the drug war actually accomplishing?
|
On July 31 2013 02:30 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2013 02:12 MarklarMarklarr wrote:On July 31 2013 02:08 farvacola wrote:On July 31 2013 02:06 MarklarMarklarr wrote:On July 31 2013 02:01 farvacola wrote:On July 31 2013 01:58 MarklarMarklarr wrote:On July 31 2013 01:54 farvacola wrote:
The Silk Road is not cheap..... Depends on where you live. also, it is getting cheaper as more vendors show up. competition you know. And many would rather pay a bit extra and get it home delivered with feedback on the product before purchase (many of the sellers of LSD gets reviewed and confirmed by experts if the drug is advertised at the given amount and that it doesn't have any other drugs in it. And how do you know that they are "experts"? In fact, how do you know anything being advertised is legit? The answer is you don't, you're buying drugs on the deep web. Vendors get dissected by the community if they are shown to sell bad products, there's always a couple of guys who do testing on products, with photos and proof to back it up. It's by far more information than you are ever going to get on the street when buying drugs. And how would you know this? Are your experiences buying drugs offline varied and involved enough to really say such a thing, or maybe you've only dealt with bad drug dealers? A drug dealer isn't going to be giving you papers showing the product has been tested to only contain the said substance. All I'm sayin is that some definitely do
Unfortunately that is not a common luxury 
|
On July 31 2013 01:37 MarklarMarklarr wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2013 00:57 FryBender wrote:On July 31 2013 00:30 MarklarMarklarr wrote:On July 31 2013 00:18 FryBender wrote:On July 31 2013 00:05 MarklarMarklarr wrote:On July 30 2013 23:52 FryBender wrote:
This certainly won't break the system as the OP suggests. If this actually becomes an issue (the volume increases to where the Feds take notice) then it is so easy to stop. I'd imagine most dogs can probably easily sniff it out but even if it's so well vacuumed sealed that they can't (highly unlikely) then just off the top of my head I can think of 3 or 4 different ways to easily (and quite honestly relatively cheaply) screen the mail to detect the drugs. Yeah, now apply that to all domestic mail in the united states and imagine the cost and time that is needed. Sorry man, but even customs doesn't have a chance at taking even a fraction of the drugs going through the mail. And domestic? not a chance, must be terribly packaged if so. Most mail already goes through different types of screenings and sortings it wouldn't change any of the processes to add another screener in there. As far as cost goes like I said a DART MS (a chemical analysis insturment) is not that expensive that I can't see the Feds not being able to put it into the major sorting hubs. And you don't have to get all of them. If they can even intercept 50% of them then the price of the drugs just doubled (not to mention the fact that they now have evidence on both the sender and the receiver). This is silly to sink it's some sort of drug delivery revolution Internationally this is already done. That's why you're not getting bomb and ricin packages from Al-Quida Sweden/Norway/Australia has the most tough customs in the world, even there, where Australia scans most packages they estimate a 80-90% rate of going through, the 10-20% not getting through being badly packaged.. I'm sorry but you live in a fairy tale world, reading the silk road forums you will find postal workers around the globe telling of their drug screening procedure, it's always described as pathetic and insufficient. If they were to apply your method the cost of all mail would at least double if not more, and the amount of workers and time of delivery would increase exponential amount. The only reason right now why it's not done is that they don't care. Some kid stealing his moms credit card to buy an ounce of anything is useless to the DEA. They also don't care about some 2-bit dealer licking stamps all day long. If the cartels would start using this (which they never would because they're not stupid enough to give over the possesion of their product in mass amounts to the people who are actively searching for them) then the DEA would pay for the screening machines. As I said in the post above it would not increase mail delivery by one bit since it's already automated for sorting. Screening something that's the thickness of 2 coins is easy anyways since most bills and such is much thinner. Chemically speaking it is extremely easy to separate out if there is only paper inside an envelope or something else (as I said before I can think of three things of the top of my head while actually doing zero research into this because I'm an analytical chemist and that's what I do for a living). And if it is something else it can then go for a second round of screening to actually see if there are any drugs in there. I just thought of a system in less then 5 minutes that is feasible, does not slow down the process, and is relatively cheap (the whole thing would probably cost 50-100K depending on the technology you use). Now you seriously think that spending 10-20 million (out of a yearly budget of 2.8 billion dollars for the DEA) would be a big deal in order to not only completely shut this whole thing down but also get easily traceable evidence that would lead to both the supplier and the customer? If the cartels are involved that's chump change for the DEA when compared to the money they spend on actual operations that yield way less results. So no this doesn't change anything. And the most ironic thing about your post is that I'm the one who is looking at this with real world experience while you rely on all the mail carriers who are posting on the forums that actively promote this thing for your "facts" and I'm the one living in a fairy tale word. Mylar is being used by many these days and it protects the package from scanning. (australia for example scans a lot of the mail for organic material, but it has been shown to not be possible to scan even close to all mail) Note, your concept presented here has been refuted all over the silk road forums with thousands upon thousands of members, so I'm not buying it. Go try sell this idea if you believe in it so much. And no drug cartels won't use this system as its not a good method to move large amounts. Small time criminals yes, not the big dogs. Edit: Also, there's enormous amounts of legal organic material being shipped, such as Tea, spices and so on. Due to this, the system is even less feasible.
Cellulose (stuff that paper is made out of) and Mylar ( a type of polyester) are both organic materials so what you're saying makes no sense since most things that check for organic material check for specific organic materials and can easily tell the difference between a plastic a spice and LSD, but that's besides the point. If you agree that this will not dramatically change the way that drugs are distributed (as in smuggling the drugs by the big boys) then I certainly concede that on the small scale this is very difficult to stop.
|
Seems to me that the DEA could just find out what is in your package, wait to see if you open it, than bust you. I don't think it's really worth having your dog shot and house searched.
I bet we will see a surge of agitprop about silkroad in the coming years. It will be filled with lies about how "perfect," straight A "kids," got "dope" and how it "changed" them. There will be testimonials from former alcoholics and gambling addicts about how the ease of getting drugs online caused them to ruin their "perfect" life. The fact that they had previously abused other things will be completely ignored. As a result of the propaganda campaign, the government will pass all kinds of laws and restrictions. You will need to input all kinds of personal information when sending mail.
The whole war on drugs is a gigantic joke. In what universe is it the purpose of the government to determine consumption?
The original push to ban drugs was strongly associated with eugenics and racism. Even the idea of sobriety being "clean" is straight out of the eugenics movement.
|
On July 31 2013 03:45 FryBender wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2013 01:37 MarklarMarklarr wrote:On July 31 2013 00:57 FryBender wrote:On July 31 2013 00:30 MarklarMarklarr wrote:On July 31 2013 00:18 FryBender wrote:On July 31 2013 00:05 MarklarMarklarr wrote:On July 30 2013 23:52 FryBender wrote:
This certainly won't break the system as the OP suggests. If this actually becomes an issue (the volume increases to where the Feds take notice) then it is so easy to stop. I'd imagine most dogs can probably easily sniff it out but even if it's so well vacuumed sealed that they can't (highly unlikely) then just off the top of my head I can think of 3 or 4 different ways to easily (and quite honestly relatively cheaply) screen the mail to detect the drugs. Yeah, now apply that to all domestic mail in the united states and imagine the cost and time that is needed. Sorry man, but even customs doesn't have a chance at taking even a fraction of the drugs going through the mail. And domestic? not a chance, must be terribly packaged if so. Most mail already goes through different types of screenings and sortings it wouldn't change any of the processes to add another screener in there. As far as cost goes like I said a DART MS (a chemical analysis insturment) is not that expensive that I can't see the Feds not being able to put it into the major sorting hubs. And you don't have to get all of them. If they can even intercept 50% of them then the price of the drugs just doubled (not to mention the fact that they now have evidence on both the sender and the receiver). This is silly to sink it's some sort of drug delivery revolution Internationally this is already done. That's why you're not getting bomb and ricin packages from Al-Quida Sweden/Norway/Australia has the most tough customs in the world, even there, where Australia scans most packages they estimate a 80-90% rate of going through, the 10-20% not getting through being badly packaged.. I'm sorry but you live in a fairy tale world, reading the silk road forums you will find postal workers around the globe telling of their drug screening procedure, it's always described as pathetic and insufficient. If they were to apply your method the cost of all mail would at least double if not more, and the amount of workers and time of delivery would increase exponential amount. The only reason right now why it's not done is that they don't care. Some kid stealing his moms credit card to buy an ounce of anything is useless to the DEA. They also don't care about some 2-bit dealer licking stamps all day long. If the cartels would start using this (which they never would because they're not stupid enough to give over the possesion of their product in mass amounts to the people who are actively searching for them) then the DEA would pay for the screening machines. As I said in the post above it would not increase mail delivery by one bit since it's already automated for sorting. Screening something that's the thickness of 2 coins is easy anyways since most bills and such is much thinner. Chemically speaking it is extremely easy to separate out if there is only paper inside an envelope or something else (as I said before I can think of three things of the top of my head while actually doing zero research into this because I'm an analytical chemist and that's what I do for a living). And if it is something else it can then go for a second round of screening to actually see if there are any drugs in there. I just thought of a system in less then 5 minutes that is feasible, does not slow down the process, and is relatively cheap (the whole thing would probably cost 50-100K depending on the technology you use). Now you seriously think that spending 10-20 million (out of a yearly budget of 2.8 billion dollars for the DEA) would be a big deal in order to not only completely shut this whole thing down but also get easily traceable evidence that would lead to both the supplier and the customer? If the cartels are involved that's chump change for the DEA when compared to the money they spend on actual operations that yield way less results. So no this doesn't change anything. And the most ironic thing about your post is that I'm the one who is looking at this with real world experience while you rely on all the mail carriers who are posting on the forums that actively promote this thing for your "facts" and I'm the one living in a fairy tale word. Mylar is being used by many these days and it protects the package from scanning. (australia for example scans a lot of the mail for organic material, but it has been shown to not be possible to scan even close to all mail) Note, your concept presented here has been refuted all over the silk road forums with thousands upon thousands of members, so I'm not buying it. Go try sell this idea if you believe in it so much. And no drug cartels won't use this system as its not a good method to move large amounts. Small time criminals yes, not the big dogs. Edit: Also, there's enormous amounts of legal organic material being shipped, such as Tea, spices and so on. Due to this, the system is even less feasible. Cellulose (stuff that paper is made out of) and Mylar ( a type of polyester) are both organic materials so what you're saying makes no sense since most things that check for organic material check for specific organic materials and can easily tell the difference between a plastic a spice and LSD, but that's besides the point. If you agree that this will not dramatically change the way that drugs are distributed (as in smuggling the drugs by the big boys) then I certainly concede that on the small scale this is very difficult to stop.
Of course I'm not talking about all organic material, but your pseudo knowledge is ridiculous, get torbrowser and read the threads on that site, there's plenty of experts on the topic (and postal/fbi/DEA insiders) who know what they are talking about, unlike you, who come into this thread as an expert who can solve all drugs sent through the postal service (makes me laugh)
get real.
|
On July 31 2013 04:17 MarklarMarklarr wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2013 03:45 FryBender wrote:On July 31 2013 01:37 MarklarMarklarr wrote:On July 31 2013 00:57 FryBender wrote:On July 31 2013 00:30 MarklarMarklarr wrote:On July 31 2013 00:18 FryBender wrote:On July 31 2013 00:05 MarklarMarklarr wrote:On July 30 2013 23:52 FryBender wrote:
This certainly won't break the system as the OP suggests. If this actually becomes an issue (the volume increases to where the Feds take notice) then it is so easy to stop. I'd imagine most dogs can probably easily sniff it out but even if it's so well vacuumed sealed that they can't (highly unlikely) then just off the top of my head I can think of 3 or 4 different ways to easily (and quite honestly relatively cheaply) screen the mail to detect the drugs. Yeah, now apply that to all domestic mail in the united states and imagine the cost and time that is needed. Sorry man, but even customs doesn't have a chance at taking even a fraction of the drugs going through the mail. And domestic? not a chance, must be terribly packaged if so. Most mail already goes through different types of screenings and sortings it wouldn't change any of the processes to add another screener in there. As far as cost goes like I said a DART MS (a chemical analysis insturment) is not that expensive that I can't see the Feds not being able to put it into the major sorting hubs. And you don't have to get all of them. If they can even intercept 50% of them then the price of the drugs just doubled (not to mention the fact that they now have evidence on both the sender and the receiver). This is silly to sink it's some sort of drug delivery revolution Internationally this is already done. That's why you're not getting bomb and ricin packages from Al-Quida Sweden/Norway/Australia has the most tough customs in the world, even there, where Australia scans most packages they estimate a 80-90% rate of going through, the 10-20% not getting through being badly packaged.. I'm sorry but you live in a fairy tale world, reading the silk road forums you will find postal workers around the globe telling of their drug screening procedure, it's always described as pathetic and insufficient. If they were to apply your method the cost of all mail would at least double if not more, and the amount of workers and time of delivery would increase exponential amount. The only reason right now why it's not done is that they don't care. Some kid stealing his moms credit card to buy an ounce of anything is useless to the DEA. They also don't care about some 2-bit dealer licking stamps all day long. If the cartels would start using this (which they never would because they're not stupid enough to give over the possesion of their product in mass amounts to the people who are actively searching for them) then the DEA would pay for the screening machines. As I said in the post above it would not increase mail delivery by one bit since it's already automated for sorting. Screening something that's the thickness of 2 coins is easy anyways since most bills and such is much thinner. Chemically speaking it is extremely easy to separate out if there is only paper inside an envelope or something else (as I said before I can think of three things of the top of my head while actually doing zero research into this because I'm an analytical chemist and that's what I do for a living). And if it is something else it can then go for a second round of screening to actually see if there are any drugs in there. I just thought of a system in less then 5 minutes that is feasible, does not slow down the process, and is relatively cheap (the whole thing would probably cost 50-100K depending on the technology you use). Now you seriously think that spending 10-20 million (out of a yearly budget of 2.8 billion dollars for the DEA) would be a big deal in order to not only completely shut this whole thing down but also get easily traceable evidence that would lead to both the supplier and the customer? If the cartels are involved that's chump change for the DEA when compared to the money they spend on actual operations that yield way less results. So no this doesn't change anything. And the most ironic thing about your post is that I'm the one who is looking at this with real world experience while you rely on all the mail carriers who are posting on the forums that actively promote this thing for your "facts" and I'm the one living in a fairy tale word. Mylar is being used by many these days and it protects the package from scanning. (australia for example scans a lot of the mail for organic material, but it has been shown to not be possible to scan even close to all mail) Note, your concept presented here has been refuted all over the silk road forums with thousands upon thousands of members, so I'm not buying it. Go try sell this idea if you believe in it so much. And no drug cartels won't use this system as its not a good method to move large amounts. Small time criminals yes, not the big dogs. Edit: Also, there's enormous amounts of legal organic material being shipped, such as Tea, spices and so on. Due to this, the system is even less feasible. Cellulose (stuff that paper is made out of) and Mylar ( a type of polyester) are both organic materials so what you're saying makes no sense since most things that check for organic material check for specific organic materials and can easily tell the difference between a plastic a spice and LSD, but that's besides the point. If you agree that this will not dramatically change the way that drugs are distributed (as in smuggling the drugs by the big boys) then I certainly concede that on the small scale this is very difficult to stop. Of course I'm not talking about all organic material, but your pseudo knowledge is ridiculous, get torbrowser and read the threads on that site, there's plenty of experts on the topic (and postal/fbi/DEA insiders) who know what they are talking about, unlike you, who come into this thread as an expert who can solve all drugs sent through the postal service (makes me laugh) get real.
No matter how many times you say "organic material" it won't make you sound any smarter or more correct. Simple analytical tools exist for looking into thin flat envelopes. That's a fact.
+ Show Spoiler +if you really wan to go into the details then look up ion mobility mass specs. That's the thing they use in airports when they wipe your bag and look for traces of explosives. That is just one of the four instruments that came to mind if someone wanted to look for drugs in a sealed envelope. Another one would be a DART injection into a regular Mass Spec or maybe a high intensity NIR (either FT or a narrow-band-filter dispersive) would probably be able to do the job as well. Like I said I'm sure there are more if you actually needed a specific solution and not what's available off the shelf right now
It doesn't matter what the "experts" on these fundamentally secretive forums actually say. If you're naive enough to believe annonymous people on the internet who are trying to sell you illegal stuff and then assuring you how they are experts and how it's impossible for you to be traced or discovered then I have an (illegal) bridge to sell you that I guarantee will be a real bridge because, you know, I'm a bridge expert.
|
On July 31 2013 05:03 FryBender wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2013 04:17 MarklarMarklarr wrote:On July 31 2013 03:45 FryBender wrote:On July 31 2013 01:37 MarklarMarklarr wrote:On July 31 2013 00:57 FryBender wrote:On July 31 2013 00:30 MarklarMarklarr wrote:On July 31 2013 00:18 FryBender wrote:On July 31 2013 00:05 MarklarMarklarr wrote:On July 30 2013 23:52 FryBender wrote:
This certainly won't break the system as the OP suggests. If this actually becomes an issue (the volume increases to where the Feds take notice) then it is so easy to stop. I'd imagine most dogs can probably easily sniff it out but even if it's so well vacuumed sealed that they can't (highly unlikely) then just off the top of my head I can think of 3 or 4 different ways to easily (and quite honestly relatively cheaply) screen the mail to detect the drugs. Yeah, now apply that to all domestic mail in the united states and imagine the cost and time that is needed. Sorry man, but even customs doesn't have a chance at taking even a fraction of the drugs going through the mail. And domestic? not a chance, must be terribly packaged if so. Most mail already goes through different types of screenings and sortings it wouldn't change any of the processes to add another screener in there. As far as cost goes like I said a DART MS (a chemical analysis insturment) is not that expensive that I can't see the Feds not being able to put it into the major sorting hubs. And you don't have to get all of them. If they can even intercept 50% of them then the price of the drugs just doubled (not to mention the fact that they now have evidence on both the sender and the receiver). This is silly to sink it's some sort of drug delivery revolution Internationally this is already done. That's why you're not getting bomb and ricin packages from Al-Quida Sweden/Norway/Australia has the most tough customs in the world, even there, where Australia scans most packages they estimate a 80-90% rate of going through, the 10-20% not getting through being badly packaged.. I'm sorry but you live in a fairy tale world, reading the silk road forums you will find postal workers around the globe telling of their drug screening procedure, it's always described as pathetic and insufficient. If they were to apply your method the cost of all mail would at least double if not more, and the amount of workers and time of delivery would increase exponential amount. The only reason right now why it's not done is that they don't care. Some kid stealing his moms credit card to buy an ounce of anything is useless to the DEA. They also don't care about some 2-bit dealer licking stamps all day long. If the cartels would start using this (which they never would because they're not stupid enough to give over the possesion of their product in mass amounts to the people who are actively searching for them) then the DEA would pay for the screening machines. As I said in the post above it would not increase mail delivery by one bit since it's already automated for sorting. Screening something that's the thickness of 2 coins is easy anyways since most bills and such is much thinner. Chemically speaking it is extremely easy to separate out if there is only paper inside an envelope or something else (as I said before I can think of three things of the top of my head while actually doing zero research into this because I'm an analytical chemist and that's what I do for a living). And if it is something else it can then go for a second round of screening to actually see if there are any drugs in there. I just thought of a system in less then 5 minutes that is feasible, does not slow down the process, and is relatively cheap (the whole thing would probably cost 50-100K depending on the technology you use). Now you seriously think that spending 10-20 million (out of a yearly budget of 2.8 billion dollars for the DEA) would be a big deal in order to not only completely shut this whole thing down but also get easily traceable evidence that would lead to both the supplier and the customer? If the cartels are involved that's chump change for the DEA when compared to the money they spend on actual operations that yield way less results. So no this doesn't change anything. And the most ironic thing about your post is that I'm the one who is looking at this with real world experience while you rely on all the mail carriers who are posting on the forums that actively promote this thing for your "facts" and I'm the one living in a fairy tale word. Mylar is being used by many these days and it protects the package from scanning. (australia for example scans a lot of the mail for organic material, but it has been shown to not be possible to scan even close to all mail) Note, your concept presented here has been refuted all over the silk road forums with thousands upon thousands of members, so I'm not buying it. Go try sell this idea if you believe in it so much. And no drug cartels won't use this system as its not a good method to move large amounts. Small time criminals yes, not the big dogs. Edit: Also, there's enormous amounts of legal organic material being shipped, such as Tea, spices and so on. Due to this, the system is even less feasible. Cellulose (stuff that paper is made out of) and Mylar ( a type of polyester) are both organic materials so what you're saying makes no sense since most things that check for organic material check for specific organic materials and can easily tell the difference between a plastic a spice and LSD, but that's besides the point. If you agree that this will not dramatically change the way that drugs are distributed (as in smuggling the drugs by the big boys) then I certainly concede that on the small scale this is very difficult to stop. Of course I'm not talking about all organic material, but your pseudo knowledge is ridiculous, get torbrowser and read the threads on that site, there's plenty of experts on the topic (and postal/fbi/DEA insiders) who know what they are talking about, unlike you, who come into this thread as an expert who can solve all drugs sent through the postal service (makes me laugh) get real. No matter how many times you say "organic material" it won't make you sound any smarter or more correct. Simple analytical tools exist for looking into thin flat envelopes. That's a fact. + Show Spoiler +if you really wan to go into the details then look up ion mobility mass specs. That's the thing they use in airports when they wipe your bag and look for traces of explosives. That is just one of the four instruments that came to mind if someone wanted to look for drugs in a sealed envelope. Another one would be a DART injection into a regular Mass Spec or maybe a high intensity NIR (either FT or a narrow-band-filter dispersive) would probably be able to do the job as well. Like I said I'm sure there are more if you actually needed a specific solution and not what's available off the shelf right now It doesn't matter what the "experts" on these fundamentally secretive forums actually say. If you're naive enough to believe annonymous people on the internet who are trying to sell you illegal stuff and then assuring you how they are experts and how it's impossible for you to be traced or discovered then I have an (illegal) bridge to sell you that I guarantee will be a real bridge because, you know, I'm a bridge expert.
The thing is not only the vendors post on these sites. You as a customer can post too, and even if there are some false reviews (I'm sure plenty of vendors have tried that), the lack of a huge amount of negative feedback from a vendor with decent volume indicates that the customers are generally happy with the service.
You can compare it to the Amazon platform. No matter what the seller writes in the product description and a few faked 5 star review, if you see 90% 1 star reviews talking about the product being intercepted by customs, having no effect or a bad effect, then you are not going to risk it.
No silkroads is not perfect and there is potential for scams and being caught, in particular when working with new vendors, or when ordering across the borders of a country which has a very strict checking of incoming mail (I have had packages from legal natural supplement vendors like iherb opened and examined when ordering online). However for most people in most countries if you are careful who you do business with, then the risk is very minor and many orders of magnitude smaller than with the traditional way of obtaining illegal substances.
|
Pretty good service for the costumer. I remember some time ago they fucked a seller in Australia. But these kind of negative events don't happen often. I guess the costs for putting the sellers infront of a court are considered too high, chasing the street dealers seems to be the better investment.
I would encourage the use of SR for people who consume just from timte to time and don't have good real life contacts.
|
On July 31 2013 05:18 rasnj wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2013 05:03 FryBender wrote:On July 31 2013 04:17 MarklarMarklarr wrote:On July 31 2013 03:45 FryBender wrote:On July 31 2013 01:37 MarklarMarklarr wrote:On July 31 2013 00:57 FryBender wrote:On July 31 2013 00:30 MarklarMarklarr wrote:On July 31 2013 00:18 FryBender wrote:On July 31 2013 00:05 MarklarMarklarr wrote:On July 30 2013 23:52 FryBender wrote:
This certainly won't break the system as the OP suggests. If this actually becomes an issue (the volume increases to where the Feds take notice) then it is so easy to stop. I'd imagine most dogs can probably easily sniff it out but even if it's so well vacuumed sealed that they can't (highly unlikely) then just off the top of my head I can think of 3 or 4 different ways to easily (and quite honestly relatively cheaply) screen the mail to detect the drugs. Yeah, now apply that to all domestic mail in the united states and imagine the cost and time that is needed. Sorry man, but even customs doesn't have a chance at taking even a fraction of the drugs going through the mail. And domestic? not a chance, must be terribly packaged if so. Most mail already goes through different types of screenings and sortings it wouldn't change any of the processes to add another screener in there. As far as cost goes like I said a DART MS (a chemical analysis insturment) is not that expensive that I can't see the Feds not being able to put it into the major sorting hubs. And you don't have to get all of them. If they can even intercept 50% of them then the price of the drugs just doubled (not to mention the fact that they now have evidence on both the sender and the receiver). This is silly to sink it's some sort of drug delivery revolution Internationally this is already done. That's why you're not getting bomb and ricin packages from Al-Quida Sweden/Norway/Australia has the most tough customs in the world, even there, where Australia scans most packages they estimate a 80-90% rate of going through, the 10-20% not getting through being badly packaged.. I'm sorry but you live in a fairy tale world, reading the silk road forums you will find postal workers around the globe telling of their drug screening procedure, it's always described as pathetic and insufficient. If they were to apply your method the cost of all mail would at least double if not more, and the amount of workers and time of delivery would increase exponential amount. The only reason right now why it's not done is that they don't care. Some kid stealing his moms credit card to buy an ounce of anything is useless to the DEA. They also don't care about some 2-bit dealer licking stamps all day long. If the cartels would start using this (which they never would because they're not stupid enough to give over the possesion of their product in mass amounts to the people who are actively searching for them) then the DEA would pay for the screening machines. As I said in the post above it would not increase mail delivery by one bit since it's already automated for sorting. Screening something that's the thickness of 2 coins is easy anyways since most bills and such is much thinner. Chemically speaking it is extremely easy to separate out if there is only paper inside an envelope or something else (as I said before I can think of three things of the top of my head while actually doing zero research into this because I'm an analytical chemist and that's what I do for a living). And if it is something else it can then go for a second round of screening to actually see if there are any drugs in there. I just thought of a system in less then 5 minutes that is feasible, does not slow down the process, and is relatively cheap (the whole thing would probably cost 50-100K depending on the technology you use). Now you seriously think that spending 10-20 million (out of a yearly budget of 2.8 billion dollars for the DEA) would be a big deal in order to not only completely shut this whole thing down but also get easily traceable evidence that would lead to both the supplier and the customer? If the cartels are involved that's chump change for the DEA when compared to the money they spend on actual operations that yield way less results. So no this doesn't change anything. And the most ironic thing about your post is that I'm the one who is looking at this with real world experience while you rely on all the mail carriers who are posting on the forums that actively promote this thing for your "facts" and I'm the one living in a fairy tale word. Mylar is being used by many these days and it protects the package from scanning. (australia for example scans a lot of the mail for organic material, but it has been shown to not be possible to scan even close to all mail) Note, your concept presented here has been refuted all over the silk road forums with thousands upon thousands of members, so I'm not buying it. Go try sell this idea if you believe in it so much. And no drug cartels won't use this system as its not a good method to move large amounts. Small time criminals yes, not the big dogs. Edit: Also, there's enormous amounts of legal organic material being shipped, such as Tea, spices and so on. Due to this, the system is even less feasible. Cellulose (stuff that paper is made out of) and Mylar ( a type of polyester) are both organic materials so what you're saying makes no sense since most things that check for organic material check for specific organic materials and can easily tell the difference between a plastic a spice and LSD, but that's besides the point. If you agree that this will not dramatically change the way that drugs are distributed (as in smuggling the drugs by the big boys) then I certainly concede that on the small scale this is very difficult to stop. Of course I'm not talking about all organic material, but your pseudo knowledge is ridiculous, get torbrowser and read the threads on that site, there's plenty of experts on the topic (and postal/fbi/DEA insiders) who know what they are talking about, unlike you, who come into this thread as an expert who can solve all drugs sent through the postal service (makes me laugh) get real. No matter how many times you say "organic material" it won't make you sound any smarter or more correct. Simple analytical tools exist for looking into thin flat envelopes. That's a fact. + Show Spoiler +if you really wan to go into the details then look up ion mobility mass specs. That's the thing they use in airports when they wipe your bag and look for traces of explosives. That is just one of the four instruments that came to mind if someone wanted to look for drugs in a sealed envelope. Another one would be a DART injection into a regular Mass Spec or maybe a high intensity NIR (either FT or a narrow-band-filter dispersive) would probably be able to do the job as well. Like I said I'm sure there are more if you actually needed a specific solution and not what's available off the shelf right now It doesn't matter what the "experts" on these fundamentally secretive forums actually say. If you're naive enough to believe annonymous people on the internet who are trying to sell you illegal stuff and then assuring you how they are experts and how it's impossible for you to be traced or discovered then I have an (illegal) bridge to sell you that I guarantee will be a real bridge because, you know, I'm a bridge expert. The thing is not only the vendors post on these sites. You as a customer can post too, and even if there are some false reviews (I'm sure plenty of vendors have tried that), the lack of a huge amount of negative feedback from a vendor with decent volume indicates that the customers are generally happy with the service. You can compare it to the Amazon platform. No matter what the seller writes in the product description and a few faked 5 star review, if you see 90% 1 star reviews talking about the product being intercepted by customs, having no effect or a bad effect, then you are not going to risk it. No silkroads is not perfect and there is potential for scams and being caught, in particular when working with new vendors, or when ordering across the borders of a country which has a very strict checking of incoming mail (I have had packages from legal natural supplement vendors like iherb opened and examined when ordering online). However for most people in most countries if you are careful who you do business with, then the risk is very minor and many orders of magnitude smaller than with the traditional way of obtaining illegal substances.
I understand how the system works and certainly, for small quantities, of course the chances of getting caught are slim. That's not at all what I'm arguing. I just find it laughable that the OP actually believes what these "experts" are feeding him when there is a very clear conflict of interest as to why they would want to portray the information in a certain way. To say that it's nearly impossible to detect is just not true. To say that it's not worth it to invest in the detection equipment required to screen most mail is a different matter. But don't say impossible when it's actually relatively simple.
|
On July 31 2013 05:03 FryBender wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2013 04:17 MarklarMarklarr wrote:On July 31 2013 03:45 FryBender wrote:On July 31 2013 01:37 MarklarMarklarr wrote:On July 31 2013 00:57 FryBender wrote:On July 31 2013 00:30 MarklarMarklarr wrote:On July 31 2013 00:18 FryBender wrote:On July 31 2013 00:05 MarklarMarklarr wrote:On July 30 2013 23:52 FryBender wrote:
This certainly won't break the system as the OP suggests. If this actually becomes an issue (the volume increases to where the Feds take notice) then it is so easy to stop. I'd imagine most dogs can probably easily sniff it out but even if it's so well vacuumed sealed that they can't (highly unlikely) then just off the top of my head I can think of 3 or 4 different ways to easily (and quite honestly relatively cheaply) screen the mail to detect the drugs. Yeah, now apply that to all domestic mail in the united states and imagine the cost and time that is needed. Sorry man, but even customs doesn't have a chance at taking even a fraction of the drugs going through the mail. And domestic? not a chance, must be terribly packaged if so. Most mail already goes through different types of screenings and sortings it wouldn't change any of the processes to add another screener in there. As far as cost goes like I said a DART MS (a chemical analysis insturment) is not that expensive that I can't see the Feds not being able to put it into the major sorting hubs. And you don't have to get all of them. If they can even intercept 50% of them then the price of the drugs just doubled (not to mention the fact that they now have evidence on both the sender and the receiver). This is silly to sink it's some sort of drug delivery revolution Internationally this is already done. That's why you're not getting bomb and ricin packages from Al-Quida Sweden/Norway/Australia has the most tough customs in the world, even there, where Australia scans most packages they estimate a 80-90% rate of going through, the 10-20% not getting through being badly packaged.. I'm sorry but you live in a fairy tale world, reading the silk road forums you will find postal workers around the globe telling of their drug screening procedure, it's always described as pathetic and insufficient. If they were to apply your method the cost of all mail would at least double if not more, and the amount of workers and time of delivery would increase exponential amount. The only reason right now why it's not done is that they don't care. Some kid stealing his moms credit card to buy an ounce of anything is useless to the DEA. They also don't care about some 2-bit dealer licking stamps all day long. If the cartels would start using this (which they never would because they're not stupid enough to give over the possesion of their product in mass amounts to the people who are actively searching for them) then the DEA would pay for the screening machines. As I said in the post above it would not increase mail delivery by one bit since it's already automated for sorting. Screening something that's the thickness of 2 coins is easy anyways since most bills and such is much thinner. Chemically speaking it is extremely easy to separate out if there is only paper inside an envelope or something else (as I said before I can think of three things of the top of my head while actually doing zero research into this because I'm an analytical chemist and that's what I do for a living). And if it is something else it can then go for a second round of screening to actually see if there are any drugs in there. I just thought of a system in less then 5 minutes that is feasible, does not slow down the process, and is relatively cheap (the whole thing would probably cost 50-100K depending on the technology you use). Now you seriously think that spending 10-20 million (out of a yearly budget of 2.8 billion dollars for the DEA) would be a big deal in order to not only completely shut this whole thing down but also get easily traceable evidence that would lead to both the supplier and the customer? If the cartels are involved that's chump change for the DEA when compared to the money they spend on actual operations that yield way less results. So no this doesn't change anything. And the most ironic thing about your post is that I'm the one who is looking at this with real world experience while you rely on all the mail carriers who are posting on the forums that actively promote this thing for your "facts" and I'm the one living in a fairy tale word. Mylar is being used by many these days and it protects the package from scanning. (australia for example scans a lot of the mail for organic material, but it has been shown to not be possible to scan even close to all mail) Note, your concept presented here has been refuted all over the silk road forums with thousands upon thousands of members, so I'm not buying it. Go try sell this idea if you believe in it so much. And no drug cartels won't use this system as its not a good method to move large amounts. Small time criminals yes, not the big dogs. Edit: Also, there's enormous amounts of legal organic material being shipped, such as Tea, spices and so on. Due to this, the system is even less feasible. Cellulose (stuff that paper is made out of) and Mylar ( a type of polyester) are both organic materials so what you're saying makes no sense since most things that check for organic material check for specific organic materials and can easily tell the difference between a plastic a spice and LSD, but that's besides the point. If you agree that this will not dramatically change the way that drugs are distributed (as in smuggling the drugs by the big boys) then I certainly concede that on the small scale this is very difficult to stop. Of course I'm not talking about all organic material, but your pseudo knowledge is ridiculous, get torbrowser and read the threads on that site, there's plenty of experts on the topic (and postal/fbi/DEA insiders) who know what they are talking about, unlike you, who come into this thread as an expert who can solve all drugs sent through the postal service (makes me laugh) get real. No matter how many times you say "organic material" it won't make you sound any smarter or more correct. Simple analytical tools exist for looking into thin flat envelopes. That's a fact. + Show Spoiler +if you really wan to go into the details then look up ion mobility mass specs. That's the thing they use in airports when they wipe your bag and look for traces of explosives. That is just one of the four instruments that came to mind if someone wanted to look for drugs in a sealed envelope. Another one would be a DART injection into a regular Mass Spec or maybe a high intensity NIR (either FT or a narrow-band-filter dispersive) would probably be able to do the job as well. Like I said I'm sure there are more if you actually needed a specific solution and not what's available off the shelf right now It doesn't matter what the "experts" on these fundamentally secretive forums actually say. If you're naive enough to believe annonymous people on the internet who are trying to sell you illegal stuff and then assuring you how they are experts and how it's impossible for you to be traced or discovered then I have an (illegal) bridge to sell you that I guarantee will be a real bridge because, you know, I'm a bridge expert.
I never said it was impossible to catch the letters, I did however say that your idea that you can get a high rate letters getting caught without massive costs and delay in the postal system is not supported by anything. Australia has the strongest customs in the world right now and people are reporting 80-90% delivery rates into the country, some vendors have 100% success.
What is your response to that? They just haven't bothered enough? They haven't received sufficient money? The idea you presented tried to make yourself out to be some kind of genius problem solver, however, this has been going on in high volumes for years, even prior to Silk Road. They will never get enough resources to open so many letters without vast cost increases in shipping and longer delivery times. Even employees at USPS and other places writing in the silk road forums talking about this attitude among their coworkers, essentially in theory you could catch many letters, but it isn't possible to implement. Each letter confiscated requires huge amounts of paperwork as well, do they have time for that each time someone orders a gram of coke and a few grams of weed?
Your thick skull must be one of the most absurd i've come across in a while, you have little practical knowledge of anything related to the postal system and silk road and only fall back on your supposed scientific background, trying to appear an expert, well guess what, your thinking is vintage and it still hasn't been implemented for a reason.
|
On July 31 2013 05:29 FryBender wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2013 05:18 rasnj wrote:On July 31 2013 05:03 FryBender wrote:On July 31 2013 04:17 MarklarMarklarr wrote:On July 31 2013 03:45 FryBender wrote:On July 31 2013 01:37 MarklarMarklarr wrote:On July 31 2013 00:57 FryBender wrote:On July 31 2013 00:30 MarklarMarklarr wrote:On July 31 2013 00:18 FryBender wrote:On July 31 2013 00:05 MarklarMarklarr wrote:
[quote]
Yeah, now apply that to all domestic mail in the united states and imagine the cost and time that is needed. Sorry man, but even customs doesn't have a chance at taking even a fraction of the drugs going through the mail. And domestic? not a chance, must be terribly packaged if so.
Most mail already goes through different types of screenings and sortings it wouldn't change any of the processes to add another screener in there. As far as cost goes like I said a DART MS (a chemical analysis insturment) is not that expensive that I can't see the Feds not being able to put it into the major sorting hubs. And you don't have to get all of them. If they can even intercept 50% of them then the price of the drugs just doubled (not to mention the fact that they now have evidence on both the sender and the receiver). This is silly to sink it's some sort of drug delivery revolution Internationally this is already done. That's why you're not getting bomb and ricin packages from Al-Quida Sweden/Norway/Australia has the most tough customs in the world, even there, where Australia scans most packages they estimate a 80-90% rate of going through, the 10-20% not getting through being badly packaged.. I'm sorry but you live in a fairy tale world, reading the silk road forums you will find postal workers around the globe telling of their drug screening procedure, it's always described as pathetic and insufficient. If they were to apply your method the cost of all mail would at least double if not more, and the amount of workers and time of delivery would increase exponential amount. The only reason right now why it's not done is that they don't care. Some kid stealing his moms credit card to buy an ounce of anything is useless to the DEA. They also don't care about some 2-bit dealer licking stamps all day long. If the cartels would start using this (which they never would because they're not stupid enough to give over the possesion of their product in mass amounts to the people who are actively searching for them) then the DEA would pay for the screening machines. As I said in the post above it would not increase mail delivery by one bit since it's already automated for sorting. Screening something that's the thickness of 2 coins is easy anyways since most bills and such is much thinner. Chemically speaking it is extremely easy to separate out if there is only paper inside an envelope or something else (as I said before I can think of three things of the top of my head while actually doing zero research into this because I'm an analytical chemist and that's what I do for a living). And if it is something else it can then go for a second round of screening to actually see if there are any drugs in there. I just thought of a system in less then 5 minutes that is feasible, does not slow down the process, and is relatively cheap (the whole thing would probably cost 50-100K depending on the technology you use). Now you seriously think that spending 10-20 million (out of a yearly budget of 2.8 billion dollars for the DEA) would be a big deal in order to not only completely shut this whole thing down but also get easily traceable evidence that would lead to both the supplier and the customer? If the cartels are involved that's chump change for the DEA when compared to the money they spend on actual operations that yield way less results. So no this doesn't change anything. And the most ironic thing about your post is that I'm the one who is looking at this with real world experience while you rely on all the mail carriers who are posting on the forums that actively promote this thing for your "facts" and I'm the one living in a fairy tale word. Mylar is being used by many these days and it protects the package from scanning. (australia for example scans a lot of the mail for organic material, but it has been shown to not be possible to scan even close to all mail) Note, your concept presented here has been refuted all over the silk road forums with thousands upon thousands of members, so I'm not buying it. Go try sell this idea if you believe in it so much. And no drug cartels won't use this system as its not a good method to move large amounts. Small time criminals yes, not the big dogs. Edit: Also, there's enormous amounts of legal organic material being shipped, such as Tea, spices and so on. Due to this, the system is even less feasible. Cellulose (stuff that paper is made out of) and Mylar ( a type of polyester) are both organic materials so what you're saying makes no sense since most things that check for organic material check for specific organic materials and can easily tell the difference between a plastic a spice and LSD, but that's besides the point. If you agree that this will not dramatically change the way that drugs are distributed (as in smuggling the drugs by the big boys) then I certainly concede that on the small scale this is very difficult to stop. Of course I'm not talking about all organic material, but your pseudo knowledge is ridiculous, get torbrowser and read the threads on that site, there's plenty of experts on the topic (and postal/fbi/DEA insiders) who know what they are talking about, unlike you, who come into this thread as an expert who can solve all drugs sent through the postal service (makes me laugh) get real. No matter how many times you say "organic material" it won't make you sound any smarter or more correct. Simple analytical tools exist for looking into thin flat envelopes. That's a fact. + Show Spoiler +if you really wan to go into the details then look up ion mobility mass specs. That's the thing they use in airports when they wipe your bag and look for traces of explosives. That is just one of the four instruments that came to mind if someone wanted to look for drugs in a sealed envelope. Another one would be a DART injection into a regular Mass Spec or maybe a high intensity NIR (either FT or a narrow-band-filter dispersive) would probably be able to do the job as well. Like I said I'm sure there are more if you actually needed a specific solution and not what's available off the shelf right now It doesn't matter what the "experts" on these fundamentally secretive forums actually say. If you're naive enough to believe annonymous people on the internet who are trying to sell you illegal stuff and then assuring you how they are experts and how it's impossible for you to be traced or discovered then I have an (illegal) bridge to sell you that I guarantee will be a real bridge because, you know, I'm a bridge expert. The thing is not only the vendors post on these sites. You as a customer can post too, and even if there are some false reviews (I'm sure plenty of vendors have tried that), the lack of a huge amount of negative feedback from a vendor with decent volume indicates that the customers are generally happy with the service. You can compare it to the Amazon platform. No matter what the seller writes in the product description and a few faked 5 star review, if you see 90% 1 star reviews talking about the product being intercepted by customs, having no effect or a bad effect, then you are not going to risk it. No silkroads is not perfect and there is potential for scams and being caught, in particular when working with new vendors, or when ordering across the borders of a country which has a very strict checking of incoming mail (I have had packages from legal natural supplement vendors like iherb opened and examined when ordering online). However for most people in most countries if you are careful who you do business with, then the risk is very minor and many orders of magnitude smaller than with the traditional way of obtaining illegal substances. I understand how the system works and certainly, for small quantities, of course the chances of getting caught are slim. That's not at all what I'm arguing. I just find it laughable that the OP actually believes what these "experts" are feeding him when there is a very clear conflict of interest as to why they would want to portray the information in a certain way. To say that it's nearly impossible to detect is just not true. To say that it's not worth it to invest in the detection equipment required to screen most mail is a different matter. But don't say impossible when it's actually relatively simple.
Wow your insanity is beyond a doubt, there's even threads on the forums over there where they have an actual drug dog performing sniff tests on various of packages with various of packaging methods. These people know what they are doing, they are vendors on this site and have made it their living in researching methods around the world used to detect drugs in the mail, and you think I'm talking shit? Go there yourself, if you are able to google yourself the knowledge how to get their and enter their forums you can see for yourself.
Wow I really can't stand people like you, I have admitted many times there are methods of detection, but not PRACTICAL METHODS OF DETECTION capable of being used on millions upon millions of letters and packages EVERY SINGLE DAY.
|
On July 31 2013 05:46 MarklarMarklarr wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2013 05:29 FryBender wrote:On July 31 2013 05:18 rasnj wrote:On July 31 2013 05:03 FryBender wrote:On July 31 2013 04:17 MarklarMarklarr wrote:On July 31 2013 03:45 FryBender wrote:On July 31 2013 01:37 MarklarMarklarr wrote:On July 31 2013 00:57 FryBender wrote:On July 31 2013 00:30 MarklarMarklarr wrote:On July 31 2013 00:18 FryBender wrote:
[quote]
Most mail already goes through different types of screenings and sortings it wouldn't change any of the processes to add another screener in there. As far as cost goes like I said a DART MS (a chemical analysis insturment) is not that expensive that I can't see the Feds not being able to put it into the major sorting hubs. And you don't have to get all of them. If they can even intercept 50% of them then the price of the drugs just doubled (not to mention the fact that they now have evidence on both the sender and the receiver). This is silly to sink it's some sort of drug delivery revolution
Internationally this is already done. That's why you're not getting bomb and ricin packages from Al-Quida Sweden/Norway/Australia has the most tough customs in the world, even there, where Australia scans most packages they estimate a 80-90% rate of going through, the 10-20% not getting through being badly packaged.. I'm sorry but you live in a fairy tale world, reading the silk road forums you will find postal workers around the globe telling of their drug screening procedure, it's always described as pathetic and insufficient. If they were to apply your method the cost of all mail would at least double if not more, and the amount of workers and time of delivery would increase exponential amount. The only reason right now why it's not done is that they don't care. Some kid stealing his moms credit card to buy an ounce of anything is useless to the DEA. They also don't care about some 2-bit dealer licking stamps all day long. If the cartels would start using this (which they never would because they're not stupid enough to give over the possesion of their product in mass amounts to the people who are actively searching for them) then the DEA would pay for the screening machines. As I said in the post above it would not increase mail delivery by one bit since it's already automated for sorting. Screening something that's the thickness of 2 coins is easy anyways since most bills and such is much thinner. Chemically speaking it is extremely easy to separate out if there is only paper inside an envelope or something else (as I said before I can think of three things of the top of my head while actually doing zero research into this because I'm an analytical chemist and that's what I do for a living). And if it is something else it can then go for a second round of screening to actually see if there are any drugs in there. I just thought of a system in less then 5 minutes that is feasible, does not slow down the process, and is relatively cheap (the whole thing would probably cost 50-100K depending on the technology you use). Now you seriously think that spending 10-20 million (out of a yearly budget of 2.8 billion dollars for the DEA) would be a big deal in order to not only completely shut this whole thing down but also get easily traceable evidence that would lead to both the supplier and the customer? If the cartels are involved that's chump change for the DEA when compared to the money they spend on actual operations that yield way less results. So no this doesn't change anything. And the most ironic thing about your post is that I'm the one who is looking at this with real world experience while you rely on all the mail carriers who are posting on the forums that actively promote this thing for your "facts" and I'm the one living in a fairy tale word. Mylar is being used by many these days and it protects the package from scanning. (australia for example scans a lot of the mail for organic material, but it has been shown to not be possible to scan even close to all mail) Note, your concept presented here has been refuted all over the silk road forums with thousands upon thousands of members, so I'm not buying it. Go try sell this idea if you believe in it so much. And no drug cartels won't use this system as its not a good method to move large amounts. Small time criminals yes, not the big dogs. Edit: Also, there's enormous amounts of legal organic material being shipped, such as Tea, spices and so on. Due to this, the system is even less feasible. Cellulose (stuff that paper is made out of) and Mylar ( a type of polyester) are both organic materials so what you're saying makes no sense since most things that check for organic material check for specific organic materials and can easily tell the difference between a plastic a spice and LSD, but that's besides the point. If you agree that this will not dramatically change the way that drugs are distributed (as in smuggling the drugs by the big boys) then I certainly concede that on the small scale this is very difficult to stop. Of course I'm not talking about all organic material, but your pseudo knowledge is ridiculous, get torbrowser and read the threads on that site, there's plenty of experts on the topic (and postal/fbi/DEA insiders) who know what they are talking about, unlike you, who come into this thread as an expert who can solve all drugs sent through the postal service (makes me laugh) get real. No matter how many times you say "organic material" it won't make you sound any smarter or more correct. Simple analytical tools exist for looking into thin flat envelopes. That's a fact. + Show Spoiler +if you really wan to go into the details then look up ion mobility mass specs. That's the thing they use in airports when they wipe your bag and look for traces of explosives. That is just one of the four instruments that came to mind if someone wanted to look for drugs in a sealed envelope. Another one would be a DART injection into a regular Mass Spec or maybe a high intensity NIR (either FT or a narrow-band-filter dispersive) would probably be able to do the job as well. Like I said I'm sure there are more if you actually needed a specific solution and not what's available off the shelf right now It doesn't matter what the "experts" on these fundamentally secretive forums actually say. If you're naive enough to believe annonymous people on the internet who are trying to sell you illegal stuff and then assuring you how they are experts and how it's impossible for you to be traced or discovered then I have an (illegal) bridge to sell you that I guarantee will be a real bridge because, you know, I'm a bridge expert. The thing is not only the vendors post on these sites. You as a customer can post too, and even if there are some false reviews (I'm sure plenty of vendors have tried that), the lack of a huge amount of negative feedback from a vendor with decent volume indicates that the customers are generally happy with the service. You can compare it to the Amazon platform. No matter what the seller writes in the product description and a few faked 5 star review, if you see 90% 1 star reviews talking about the product being intercepted by customs, having no effect or a bad effect, then you are not going to risk it. No silkroads is not perfect and there is potential for scams and being caught, in particular when working with new vendors, or when ordering across the borders of a country which has a very strict checking of incoming mail (I have had packages from legal natural supplement vendors like iherb opened and examined when ordering online). However for most people in most countries if you are careful who you do business with, then the risk is very minor and many orders of magnitude smaller than with the traditional way of obtaining illegal substances. I understand how the system works and certainly, for small quantities, of course the chances of getting caught are slim. That's not at all what I'm arguing. I just find it laughable that the OP actually believes what these "experts" are feeding him when there is a very clear conflict of interest as to why they would want to portray the information in a certain way. To say that it's nearly impossible to detect is just not true. To say that it's not worth it to invest in the detection equipment required to screen most mail is a different matter. But don't say impossible when it's actually relatively simple.
Wow your insanity is beyond a doubt, there's even threads on the forums over there where they have an actual drug dog performing sniff tests on various of packages with various of packaging methods. These people know what they are doing, they are vendors on this site and have made it their living in researching methods around the world used to detect drugs in the mail, and you think I'm talking shit? Go there yourself, if you are able to google yourself the knowledge how to get their and enter their forums you can see for yourself. Wow I really can't stand people like you, I have admitted many times there are methods of detection, but not PRACTICAL METHODS OF DETECTION capable of being used on millions upon millions of letters and packages
i doubt him being insane.
|
On July 31 2013 05:48 Race is Terran wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2013 05:46 MarklarMarklarr wrote:On July 31 2013 05:29 FryBender wrote:On July 31 2013 05:18 rasnj wrote:On July 31 2013 05:03 FryBender wrote:On July 31 2013 04:17 MarklarMarklarr wrote:On July 31 2013 03:45 FryBender wrote:On July 31 2013 01:37 MarklarMarklarr wrote:On July 31 2013 00:57 FryBender wrote:On July 31 2013 00:30 MarklarMarklarr wrote:
[quote]
Sweden/Norway/Australia has the most tough customs in the world, even there, where Australia scans most packages they estimate a 80-90% rate of going through, the 10-20% not getting through being badly packaged..
I'm sorry but you live in a fairy tale world, reading the silk road forums you will find postal workers around the globe telling of their drug screening procedure, it's always described as pathetic and insufficient. If they were to apply your method the cost of all mail would at least double if not more, and the amount of workers and time of delivery would increase exponential amount. The only reason right now why it's not done is that they don't care. Some kid stealing his moms credit card to buy an ounce of anything is useless to the DEA. They also don't care about some 2-bit dealer licking stamps all day long. If the cartels would start using this (which they never would because they're not stupid enough to give over the possesion of their product in mass amounts to the people who are actively searching for them) then the DEA would pay for the screening machines. As I said in the post above it would not increase mail delivery by one bit since it's already automated for sorting. Screening something that's the thickness of 2 coins is easy anyways since most bills and such is much thinner. Chemically speaking it is extremely easy to separate out if there is only paper inside an envelope or something else (as I said before I can think of three things of the top of my head while actually doing zero research into this because I'm an analytical chemist and that's what I do for a living). And if it is something else it can then go for a second round of screening to actually see if there are any drugs in there. I just thought of a system in less then 5 minutes that is feasible, does not slow down the process, and is relatively cheap (the whole thing would probably cost 50-100K depending on the technology you use). Now you seriously think that spending 10-20 million (out of a yearly budget of 2.8 billion dollars for the DEA) would be a big deal in order to not only completely shut this whole thing down but also get easily traceable evidence that would lead to both the supplier and the customer? If the cartels are involved that's chump change for the DEA when compared to the money they spend on actual operations that yield way less results. So no this doesn't change anything. And the most ironic thing about your post is that I'm the one who is looking at this with real world experience while you rely on all the mail carriers who are posting on the forums that actively promote this thing for your "facts" and I'm the one living in a fairy tale word. Mylar is being used by many these days and it protects the package from scanning. (australia for example scans a lot of the mail for organic material, but it has been shown to not be possible to scan even close to all mail) Note, your concept presented here has been refuted all over the silk road forums with thousands upon thousands of members, so I'm not buying it. Go try sell this idea if you believe in it so much. And no drug cartels won't use this system as its not a good method to move large amounts. Small time criminals yes, not the big dogs. Edit: Also, there's enormous amounts of legal organic material being shipped, such as Tea, spices and so on. Due to this, the system is even less feasible. Cellulose (stuff that paper is made out of) and Mylar ( a type of polyester) are both organic materials so what you're saying makes no sense since most things that check for organic material check for specific organic materials and can easily tell the difference between a plastic a spice and LSD, but that's besides the point. If you agree that this will not dramatically change the way that drugs are distributed (as in smuggling the drugs by the big boys) then I certainly concede that on the small scale this is very difficult to stop. Of course I'm not talking about all organic material, but your pseudo knowledge is ridiculous, get torbrowser and read the threads on that site, there's plenty of experts on the topic (and postal/fbi/DEA insiders) who know what they are talking about, unlike you, who come into this thread as an expert who can solve all drugs sent through the postal service (makes me laugh) get real. No matter how many times you say "organic material" it won't make you sound any smarter or more correct. Simple analytical tools exist for looking into thin flat envelopes. That's a fact. + Show Spoiler +if you really wan to go into the details then look up ion mobility mass specs. That's the thing they use in airports when they wipe your bag and look for traces of explosives. That is just one of the four instruments that came to mind if someone wanted to look for drugs in a sealed envelope. Another one would be a DART injection into a regular Mass Spec or maybe a high intensity NIR (either FT or a narrow-band-filter dispersive) would probably be able to do the job as well. Like I said I'm sure there are more if you actually needed a specific solution and not what's available off the shelf right now It doesn't matter what the "experts" on these fundamentally secretive forums actually say. If you're naive enough to believe annonymous people on the internet who are trying to sell you illegal stuff and then assuring you how they are experts and how it's impossible for you to be traced or discovered then I have an (illegal) bridge to sell you that I guarantee will be a real bridge because, you know, I'm a bridge expert. The thing is not only the vendors post on these sites. You as a customer can post too, and even if there are some false reviews (I'm sure plenty of vendors have tried that), the lack of a huge amount of negative feedback from a vendor with decent volume indicates that the customers are generally happy with the service. You can compare it to the Amazon platform. No matter what the seller writes in the product description and a few faked 5 star review, if you see 90% 1 star reviews talking about the product being intercepted by customs, having no effect or a bad effect, then you are not going to risk it. No silkroads is not perfect and there is potential for scams and being caught, in particular when working with new vendors, or when ordering across the borders of a country which has a very strict checking of incoming mail (I have had packages from legal natural supplement vendors like iherb opened and examined when ordering online). However for most people in most countries if you are careful who you do business with, then the risk is very minor and many orders of magnitude smaller than with the traditional way of obtaining illegal substances. I understand how the system works and certainly, for small quantities, of course the chances of getting caught are slim. That's not at all what I'm arguing. I just find it laughable that the OP actually believes what these "experts" are feeding him when there is a very clear conflict of interest as to why they would want to portray the information in a certain way. To say that it's nearly impossible to detect is just not true. To say that it's not worth it to invest in the detection equipment required to screen most mail is a different matter. But don't say impossible when it's actually relatively simple.
Wow your insanity is beyond a doubt, there's even threads on the forums over there where they have an actual drug dog performing sniff tests on various of packages with various of packaging methods. These people know what they are doing, they are vendors on this site and have made it their living in researching methods around the world used to detect drugs in the mail, and you think I'm talking shit? Go there yourself, if you are able to google yourself the knowledge how to get their and enter their forums you can see for yourself. Wow I really can't stand people like you, I have admitted many times there are methods of detection, but not PRACTICAL METHODS OF DETECTION capable of being used on millions upon millions of letters and packages i doubt him being insane.
Very funny, he's an ignorant charlatan with no knowledge of the postal system making gigantic claims that are flawed
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.you-stylish-barcelona-apartments.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/gangster.jpg)
