Curious what your thinking behind "he should have done any time for the drug-related charges"?

I believe the responsibility for the harm caused by addictive drugs lies on the user to such great extent, that whatever remains for the people who facilitate the sale is not enough for it to be a criminal offence. It's still immoral the same way it's immoral to operate a gambling shop.

But in Ulbricht's case I'd say even this part is mitigated by the fact that facilitating the trade of dangerous drugs was a side effect of running a useful service for responsible drug users.

> It's still immoral the same way it's immoral to operate a gambling shop.

What if they sell things that aren't what they say they are and the user dies or is hurt?

That's totally the responsibility of the seller, not the platform. Especially so, if the platform takes steps to prevent such incidents.

Is it though? You might want to debate a moral philosopher over me, but I don't think you should make broad statements like that as if it was established truth.

So by that logic drug cartels are innocent in the drug trade and DEA should not be arresting dealers only users...

Yes, except they shouldn't be arresting anyone (and should be disbanded). It's absurd to punish someone for causing harm to themselves.