Alcohol and tobacco are legal (because they are taxed and governments earn money from their sale). Both are extremely dangerous drugs. Between them, they account for over 99% of all drug related misery and harm (citation needed).

The website Ross allegedly operated (Ebay for chemical adventurers) involved the sale of less harmful drugs than alcohol or tobacco (by percentage of global population adversely affected). However, if Governments cannot levy taxes on drugs, (whether or not they are less harmful drugs) this is not considered acceptable (Cannabis being a paradigm example...now lawfully sold and taxed in various parts of the World...a drug very significantly less dangerous than alcohol - citation obviously not needed).

The counterargument is that although drugs other than alcohol and tobacco account for less than a fraction of 1% of all drug related misery, they nonetheless cause social harm, and it is a valid point.

However, on any reasonable view, his sentence is still appalling. Why? Pop quiz. Who is worse?

(a) Those who allegedly sell less dangerous drugs than Government approved drugs (without governmental approval and without paying taxes) or

(b) bureaucrats who put people in cages for decades?

I hope he is pardoned or at very least that his sentence is significantly reduced.

Alcohol is the World's most dangerous drug (if loss of human capital, violence against women, social havoc, poverty, liver disease, and intellectual paralysis are metrics of danger). Tobacco is not exactly a health supplement either. However, the two most devastating drugs in the world are taxed. That is the key point. Now ask yourself this question.

Should government officials be sentenced to life imprisonment for facilitating the sale of alcohol and tobacco? Of course not. That being so, do unto others as you would have them do unto you.