"When you are making illicit purchases from anonymous sources, you can't depend on purity or that what you think you are buying is what you actually get," Strahm says. "You really don't know what you are purchasing. It's like going on a vacation without knowing your destination."

I like how the final part was a DEA official unintentionally making a strong case for legalising drugs - as always the difficulty and illegality didn't put off the woman who died (she even generated a PGP key! that's some effort you have to go to do that stuff), but if she'd known what she was taking and what was a safe level it might have saved her life.

Conversely - does the Len Bias conviction apply to execs at tobacco companies when people die of lung cancer from their products? Just pointing out the hypocrisy here, I think it's a ludicrous rule. If person A sells a less dangerous drug than person B but someone misuses it and dies from it it doesn't suddenly make that drug inherently more dangerous, only more dangerous in this one limited circumstance that they couldn't have foreseen. It makes the law weirdly anecdotal.