Trump, Who Wants To Execute Drug Dealers, Promises To Free Ross Ulbricht

""We're going to be asking everyone who sells drugs, gets caught selling drugs," former President Donald Trump said in November 2022 as he launched his 2024 presidential campaign, "to receive the death penalty for their heinous acts."

That promise was not an offhand remark; it has been core to Trump's platform. Which made one of his comments yesterday at the Libertarian National Convention all the more interesting. "I will commute the sentence of Ross Ulbricht," he said, referring to the man serving two life sentences plus 40 years for a slew of convictions, including distributing narcotics. Ulbricht's legal troubles stem from an online marketplace he founded and operated called the Silk Road, where users could buy and sell illegal substances.

Ulbricht has long been of interest to libertarians, many of whom have been dogged about their belief that his sentence was perversely disproportionate to his actual conduct. Taking Trump's words at face value, it would appear the former president agrees, at the very least, that the nearly 11 years Ulbricht has served are sufficient punishment. That is hard to square with his supposed view that people who sell drugs should be put to death.

...It's possible that the former president's drug-warrior rhetoric is another part of the flamboyant performance art that has become one of his defining traits. Whether his Ulbricht promise is yet another element of that, just on the flip side of the coin, remains unclear—although one possibly instructive fact is that Trump had the opportunity for four years to sign such a clemency grant and opted not to."

Link

Yes, folks, it may be just "another part of the flamboyant performance art that has become one of his defining traits." Sit back and enjoy the spectacle of the nation's number #1 bullshitter "telling us like it is."

Trump is so comically bad at posing as a libertarian. He's pretty good at acting but that one is just too much of a stretch for him.

My favorite part was how he instantly started insulting the crowd as soon as they booed him.

All recreational drugs should be legal, well regulated, and either sold by the government or by businesses licensed by the government. Buyers should be made aware of the dangers of dangerous drugs, drug abuse, and given ample information about freely and widely available counseling and rehab.

This would completely wipe out the illegal recreational drug market and severely slash the incomes and power of gangs.

It would drastically cut the government's expenses on policing, investigations, courts and incarceration. It would free up revenue to be spent on widely available counseling and rehab.

It is time to admit that the drug war has been a tremendous failure, that is has created a lucrative black market for gangs and had a terrible impact on our own society and worse on Central American countries where many communities have become so corrupt that the local economies have been destroyed, forcing millions of Central Americans to flee in hopes of establishing a new life in the country that did this to their communities, the United States.

The drug war has cost Americans money, lives and greatly increased illegal immigration.

It is time to take a completely different approach.

That is the position of LEAP, the Law Enforcement Action Partnership, comprised of current and former Law Enforcement professionals.

It is logical. It makes sense. There is no other better option. Continuing a failed policy can only lead to more failure.

Nomad4Ever said:

Trump is so comically bad at posing as a libertarian.

Click to expand...

Likely because he does not even know what one is.

He can’t pursue the death penalty against someone who has already been sentenced and Ulbricht wasn’t a drug dealer so what are you complaining about?

Napoleon said:

He can’t pursue the death penalty against someone who has already been sentenced and Ulbricht wasn’t a drug dealer so what are you complaining about?

Click to expand...

Says he wants to execute drug dealers while freeing them. So which is it?

"While in office, Trump famously commuted Alice Marie Johnson's sentence after she was sent to prison for life without parole for her alleged role in a cocaine conspiracy. He widely touted the move (which was the right one) as a sign of his saner approach to criminal justice.

Not long after, Trump signed legislation that bolstered that narrative: the FIRST STEP Act, which lessened several mandatory minimum sentences and increased "good time" credits, among other modest provisions. It remains one of the more lasting and effective parts of Trump's legacy, particularly when considering the very low recidivism rates for those released under the law."

j brown's body said:

Says he wants to execute drug dealers while freeing them. So which is it?

"While in office, Trump famously commuted Alice Marie Johnson's sentence after she was sent to prison for life without parole for her alleged role in a cocaine conspiracy. He widely touted the move (which was the right one) as a sign of his saner approach to criminal justice.

Not long after, Trump signed legislation that bolstered that narrative: the FIRST STEP Act, which lessened several mandatory minimum sentences and increased "good time" credits, among other modest provisions. It remains one of the more lasting and effective parts of Trump's legacy, particularly when considering the very low recidivism rates for those released under the law."

Click to expand...

Neither Ulbricht or Johnson were drug dealers.

Napoleon said:

Neither Ulbricht or Johnson were drug dealers.

Click to expand...

"...facilitated the sale of narcotics and other illegal products and services..."

Link

"...described her as a leader in a multi-million dollar cocaine ring, and detailed dozens of drug transactions and deliveries.[11]

Link

If this isn't drug dealing, what is it?

j brown's body said:

"...described her as a leader in a multi-million dollar cocaine ring, and detailed dozens of drug transactions and deliveries.[11]

Link

If this isn't drug dealing, what is it?

Click to expand...

Johnson was a trafficker not a dealer. She was responsible for the logistics of transporting cocaine to the United States not standing on street corners selling baggies.

The laws don't seem to exist. Perhaps Trump thinks he can sentence people to death, using the executive power?

j brown's body said:

"...facilitated the sale of narcotics and other illegal products and services..."

Link

"...described her as a leader in a multi-million dollar cocaine ring, and detailed dozens of drug transactions and deliveries.[11]

Link

If this isn't drug dealing, what is it?

Click to expand...

It's drug trafficking. Above half a kilo of cocaine (etc) there are harsher penalties.

Napoleon said:

Johnson was a trafficker not a dealer. She was responsible for the logistics of transporting cocaine to the United States not standing on street corners selling baggies.

Click to expand...

This isn't helping your argument:

"Generally, drug trafficking charges carry more severe penalties than drug distribution. If one is caught in possession of a very large amount of drugs, or is caught transporting drugs across state lines, they are more likely to be charged with drug trafficking."

Link

Biden should take the exact opposite position, and pardon every Federal marijuana convict from the states where marijuana is currently legal. It is offensive that Federal law is more restrictive than state law, when it is so clearly a matter for state law.

This isn't a liberal issue, it's a liberty issue. 9 out of 10 Americans think pot should be legal!

Peacenik said:

All recreational drugs should be legal, well regulated, and either sold by the government or by businesses licensed by the government. Buyers should be made aware of the dangers of dangerous drugs, drug abuse, and given ample information about freely and widely available counseling and rehab.

This would completely wipe out the illegal recreational drug market and severely slash the incomes and power of gangs.

It would drastically cut the government's expenses on policing, investigations, courts and incarceration. It would free up revenue to be spent on widely available counseling and rehab.

It is time to admit that the drug war has been a tremendous failure, that is has created a lucrative black market for gangs and had a terrible impact on our own society and worse on Central American countries where many communities have become so corrupt that the local economies have been destroyed, forcing millions of Central Americans to flee in hopes of establishing a new life in the country that did this to their communities, the United States.

The drug war has cost Americans money, lives and greatly increased illegal immigration.

It is time to take a completely different approach.

That is the position of LEAP, the Law Enforcement Action Partnership, comprised of current and former Law Enforcement professionals.

It is logical. It makes sense. There is no other better option. Continuing a failed policy can only lead to more failure.

Click to expand...

I agree with legalization, but I doubt it would ever completely wipe out the black market.

j brown's body said:

This isn't helping your argument:

"Generally, drug trafficking charges carry more severe penalties than drug distribution. If one is caught in possession of a very large amount of drugs, or is caught transporting drugs across state lines, they are more likely to be charged with drug trafficking."

Link

Click to expand...

He had to give it a try. He may be behind on his daily quota.

Napoleon said:

Johnson was a trafficker not a dealer. She was responsible for the logistics of transporting cocaine to the United States not standing on street corners selling baggies.

Click to expand...

And which one of those "occupations" destroys the most lives? It's all semantics and they both should be locked up for a long time.

RF667799 said:

I agree with legalization, but I doubt it would ever completely wipe out the black market.

Click to expand...

There is practically no black market in alcohol. What there is, is just to avoid taxes.

It's quite legal to brew your own beer here, and you're only required to pay tax if you sell the beer. It is NOT legal to distill spirits, because a bad batch can kill people so you need a license (government inspections, a registered business so you can be sued.) Now considering that street drugs can also be dangerous, I doubt it will ever be legal to "home brew" opioids or amphetamines. But still there's not much room for a black market: consumers know the risk and would rather pay the taxed price for drugs which are relatively safe.

And really, the high future I imagine is where the dangerous and addictive drugs are practically obsolete. We have millions of people who are only turning up to work because their depression has been "treated" with pharmaceuticals. They are high all the time, the dream of any junky, and don't have to commit crimes to feed their habits. Nobody knows how many of these people would have "self medicated" without the medical option, but it's definitely some of them.

Recreational drugs fill a gap in people's lives. Their drug use is well managed in most cases: they don't need pain relief (opioids) or entertainment (marijuana and party drugs) seven days a week, they just want to have some fun in their time off work. Can we trust pharmas (who gave us heroin, cocaine and diazepam) to provide a purely recreational drug, which isn't addictive? Is that actually a contradiction in terms, or are we all vulnerable to our lives being ruined by "too much fun"?

I actually think it's possible. The broad range of antidepressants demonstrate that making the patient happy does not necessarily lead to tolerance and the need for ever higher doses to still be happy. So it should be possible to make a "friday night" drug which won't work again for a week, a "saturday night" drug with no cross-tolerance, and a "sunday drug" that is restful and gratifying, but which also won't work again for a week. And if the range is wider than that (as of course it would be, as pharmas compete with each other) then drug testing at work will set the limit. Anyone so greedy for pleasure that they'll give up their job, has a psychiatric problem and there's antidepressants for that.

What pharmas are obviously cautious about, is classic addiction (the need for more and more of the drug, to still get high and/or avoid withdrawal.) But there's serious money for them, if they get it right and government stops being so anti-fun. The safest way is to still require prescriptions, so there's a record of which and how many recreational drugs an individual consumer is using, and some protection against them "dropping out" to pursue a lifestyle that is all about drugs. Because realistically, the black market drugs will still be available: there will always be addicts, but it would be much easier to treat them if they could step down (or up?) to better recreational drugs.

dockside said:

And which one of those "occupations" destroys the most lives? It's all semantics and they both should be locked up for a long time.

Click to expand...

If I create a criminal conspiracy to destroy lives, is the donor who gives a million dollars more culpable than the donor who gives a thousand?

The more money a person spends on drugs for later distribution, the more culpable they are. You think drugs would get manufactured or imported on such a huge scale, if street corner dealers had to locate and pay a manufacturer?

By the way, drugs don't destroy lives any more than guns shoot people. People who CONSUME drugs and don't know when to stop, destroy their own lives. The difference is critical, because some people consume drugs (even quite a lot of drugs) while still leading quite good lives. You deny their existence when you blame traffickers and dealers for "destroying lives."

Supply side interdiction is a failed policy. We must treat illegal drug use as a potential medical problem (but not in ever case a problem) and provide a medical solution. If there's one thing that definitely does "destroy a life" it's imprisonment.

RF667799 said:

I agree with legalization, but I doubt it would ever completely wipe out the black market.

Click to expand...

That depends on pricing and quality. With pot, legalization has failed to eliminate the black market because legal retailers greedily want to charge black market prices. Still plenty of margin in there for black market competition.

OlNate said:

That depends on pricing and quality. With pot, legalization has failed to eliminate the black market because legal retailers greedily want to charge black market prices. Still plenty of margin in there for black market competition.

Click to expand...

Or black market prices are much lower since, in WA state, sales tax is 47%. Plus, retailers only take cash (as do dealers on the BM) since banks refuse to work with them due to federal banking regs.

dockside said:

Or black market prices are much lower since, in WA state, sales tax is 47%. Plus, retailers only take cash (as do dealers on the BM) since banks refuse to work with them due to federal banking regs.

Click to expand...

Yeah, how you're handling legalization down there is a little weird, i never really understand if it's legal or not.

Taxes play a part up here to be sure, i think the government gets a dollar on every gram, flat rate across the board... but i grow my own for the most part, so i don't really pay close attention.

All i know is that i can produce a pound of AAA for what legal dispos are charging for a 1/2 ounce... so there's some bullshit somewhere along the supply chain. And that, to me, is why legalization has failed to eliminate the black market.

j brown's body said:

""We're going to be asking everyone who sells drugs, gets caught selling drugs," former President Donald Trump said in November 2022 as he launched his 2024 presidential campaign, "to receive the death penalty for their heinous acts."

That promise was not an offhand remark; it has been core to Trump's platform. Which made one of his comments yesterday at the Libertarian National Convention all the more interesting. "I will commute the sentence of Ross Ulbricht," he said, referring to the man serving two life sentences plus 40 years for a slew of convictions, including distributing narcotics. Ulbricht's legal troubles stem from an online marketplace he founded and operated called the Silk Road, where users could buy and sell illegal substances.

Ulbricht has long been of interest to libertarians, many of whom have been dogged about their belief that his sentence was perversely disproportionate to his actual conduct. Taking Trump's words at face value, it would appear the former president agrees, at the very least, that the nearly 11 years Ulbricht has served are sufficient punishment. That is hard to square with his supposed view that people who sell drugs should be put to death.

...It's possible that the former president's drug-warrior rhetoric is another part of the flamboyant performance art that has become one of his defining traits. Whether his Ulbricht promise is yet another element of that, just on the flip side of the coin, remains unclear—although one possibly instructive fact is that Trump had the opportunity for four years to sign such a clemency grant and opted not to."

Link

Yes, folks, it may be just "another part of the flamboyant performance art that has become one of his defining traits." Sit back and enjoy the spectacle of the nation's number #1 bullshitter "telling us like it is."

Click to expand...

Studies show that while Whites are more likely to deal drugs, Blacks are more likely to be arrested for it.

In fact Blacks are 10 times more likely to be jailed for drug offences.

So Trump wants to execute Blacks is what this is all about.

OlNate said:

Yeah, how you're handling legalization down there is a little weird, i never really understand if it's legal or not.

Taxes play a part up here to be sure, i think the government gets a dollar on every gram, flat rate across the board... but i grow my own for the most part, so i don't really pay close attention.

All i know is that i can produce a pound of AAA for what legal dispos are charging for a 1/2 ounce... so there's some bullshit somewhere along the supply chain. And that, to me, is why legalization has failed to eliminate the black market.

Click to expand...

Our laws aren't just weird come to MJ...they're stupid unless considered in the light of the state wanting their cut and wanting to protect their friends, just like some Mafia entity or something.

In my state, a recreational user isn't even allowed to grow their own. Not a single plant. You must purchase from the state licensed dispensary with its attendant high taxation. The guys who paid huge fees and had the connections to get those licenses to have dispensaries and grow facilities want return on their investments without competition from Mr. Greenthumb growing a couple plants in his basement and avoiding their bullshit all together.

RF667799 said:

Our laws aren't just weird come to MJ...they're stupid unless considered in the light of the state wanting their cut and wanting to protect their friends, just like some Mafia entity or something.

In my state, a recreational user isn't even allowed to grow their own. Not a single plant. You must purchase from the state licensed dispensary with its attendant high taxation. The guys who paid huge fees and had the connections to get those licenses to have dispensaries and grow facilities want return on their investments without competition from Mr. Greenthumb growing a couple plants in his basement and avoiding their bullshit all together.

Click to expand...

I mean, I'm good with the government getting a taste. One of the selling points of legalization was the fact that the country could enjoy an entirely new revenue stream from an existing multi billion dollar industry that had previously given nothing back in the form of taxes.

But, as usual, greed ****s everything up, and a lot of really great implementation ideas from people who knew what they were taking about got ignored because they didn't favor big corporate growers.

Makes you wonder what good ideas are going unheard in other industries for the same reason...

OlNate said:

I mean, I'm good with the government getting a taste. One of the selling points of legalization was the fact that the country could enjoy an entirely new revenue stream from an existing multi billion dollar industry that had previously given nothing back in the form of taxes.

But, as usual, greed ****s everything up, and a lot of really great implementation ideas from people who knew what they were taking about got ignored because they didn't favor big corporate growers.

Makes you wonder what good ideas are going unheard in other industries for the same reason...

Click to expand...

Yeah, they get more than a taste in this state. The grower is taxed 7% of their gross receipts. You know that is added into the eventual retail price. (Weed runs about $14.00 a gram before retail level taxes.) Then there is 10% for products with adjusted THC of less than 35%. 25% for products over 35%. 20% for cannabis infused products. 6.5% state sales tax. And any local taxes that municipalities feel like adding.

I've read that Illinois retail prices are the highest in the nation.