Online Narcotics Store 'Silk Road' Is Showing Cracks 330
pigrabbitbear writes "It always sounded like a hoax, didn't it? Silk Road: an Internet website where you can buy any drug in the world? Yeah, right. But it's real. It was almost two years ago that we first heard about the site, which hosts everything from Adderall to Ketamine, LSD to MDMA and tons and tons of weed. After it started to pick up a ton of press and exposure, we all thought that certainly the Silk Road would get shut down. It's super illegal to sell drugs or even to help people sell drugs. But it didn't. Silk Road survives to this day. However, with the arrival this week of the first conviction of a Silk Road-related crime, you have to wonder if Silk Road's days might be numbered after all. The trouble is brewing in Australia, where a guy named Paul Leslie Howard is facing as many as five years in prison for selling drugs on Silk Road. We're not talking millions of dollars worth of drugs, but we are talking about thousands of dollars worth. And just as Silk Road natives had feared, Howard was one of those Silk Road n00bs who read a newspaper article about the site and decided to try it out for himself."
Showing crack? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Drugs for staples? What kind of drug would a staple need? It's job is to hold reams of paper together securely. Unless the staple has ADHD I would think it could live a drug-free life.
Re:Showing crack? (Score:5, Funny)
Maybe it's drugs for Staples employees. I think if I had to work even a single day in retail, I'd want to smoke something....
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Showing crack? (Score:4, Funny)
What kind of drug would a staple need? It's job is to hold reams of paper together securely.
Unfortunately, most staples are quite inept at holding even one ream of paper together, let alone multiple reams. They are normally not in a position with much job security, as they usually can barely even support a quire of bond paper.
The drugs let these millions of inadequate staples feel better about themselves.
Idiots don't get it. (Score:5, Insightful)
SilkRoad is a sort of eBay for drugs. One guy was caught selling drugs, big deal : there are still thousand of others selling drugs on the site. It's like saying "Craigslist is DOOMED : a date rapist was caught using it!"
Re:Idiots don't get it. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Idiots don't get it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Idiots don't get it. (Score:5, Funny)
This explains a lot of the postings on the Onion [theonion.com].
America's "highest" news source, apparently.
Re:Idiots don't get it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Anonymity brings out both the best and worst of society.
I disagree. I think that anonymity just brings out the human condition in general. Your judgement thereupon is yours, and yours alone.
:-)
Many people feel the need to hide who they are from the world, and are able to express their needs in an anonymous setting. Whether that need is to express their frustration with a corrupt totalitarian regime, or self-medicate with substances frowned upon by a government, or even simply to call somebody a fuckwad [penny-arcade.com] for whatever motivation compels them, anonymity does nothing but lay bare the desires of a person when they feel nobody is looking and judging. If you feel any of those are prima facie good or bad, it's difficult to know without understanding the context that person is coming from. Maybe buying pot helps the person with anxiety, maybe calling somebody a fuckwad is somebody's only outlet in life, maybe that struggling dissident is a con artist who simply wishes to weave a tale of woe... you can't know. Which is the beauty of anonymity.
Posted anonymously for hopefully obvious reasons
Re:Idiots don't get it. (Score:5, Interesting)
While I have never used any illegal substance, I strongly object to lumping the silk road with the worst of society. (That is, if you're doing so; if not, I apologize.) If somebody wants to get high, that's their own business. The government doesn't own them, and therefore doesn't have the right to control their consumption.
I'm tired of this government that sees fit to ban buckyballs, trans fats, msg, sugary soda's, drugs, and soon to be firearms. All in the name of safety. I remember during the Bush years, dissent was called patriotic, people were making a huge stink about even one single civilian death overseas, code pink was always in the news, and people were shouting endlessly for the closing of GTMO. The frequently mis-attributed to Ben Franklin mis-quote about liberty and safety was used daily.
Yet just recently, the New York Times is demanding that the administration lay down the law. People on slashdot even tell me that I don't need soda. Hollywood unions now have more power than ever to restrict internet communication. Obama just dismantled the office he set up to close GTMO.
Seriously, what the hell? When they came for the buckyballs, we said nothing.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Government restricts lots of rights for the good of society and some people don't like that, feeling that their freedom is restricted. The most obvious restriction is the right to swing your fist, limited by government so that you can't swing your fist where someones face is occupying. There's lots of similar restrictions like going where you please, firing your weapon in a crowded place or even unsafely in an uncrowded place and so on.
It is not strictly illegal (Score:5, Informative)
Re:It is not strictly illegal (Score:5, Informative)
Category | Pct.
-----------------
Weed | 13.7%
Drugs | 9.0%
Prescription | 7.3%
Benzos | 4.9%
Books | 3.9%
Cannabis | 3.6%
Hash | 3.4%
Cocaine | 2.6%
Pills | 1.9%
Blotter (LSD) | 1.8%
Money | 1.7%
MDMA (ecstasy) | 1.6%
Erotica | 1.6%
Steroids, PEDs | 1.5%
Seeds | 1.5%
Heroin | 1.5%
DMT | 1.4%
Opioids | 1.4%
Stimulants | 1.2%
Digital goods | 1.1%
Items sold stat from http://arxiv.org/abs/1207.7139 [arxiv.org] (research conducted about SR)
There may be a marginal legit use, but the vast majority of items is illegal, mostly contraband drugs. And if you read the site's wiki it is clear that they aim for "illicit activities".
It is surprising though that the largest market seems to be "soft drugs" and meds (probably pain killer addictions).
Re: (Score:3)
Let's get real here: "A significant percentage maybe but not a majority" yet you only reference three drugs in the list. Opioids is a little low, but consider the availability of opioids in general - very controlled, hard to cultivate illicitly (at least inside the US I would think) etc etc etc. But, let's do the numbers:
* Weed | 13.7% + Cannabis | 3.6% + Hash | 3.4% + Seeds | 1.5% = 22.2% or a litte more than 1/5
** Prescription | 7.3% + Drugs | 9.0% + Benzos | 4.9% + Stimulants | 1.2% + Pills | 1.9% + Ster
Re:It is not strictly illegal (Score:4, Funny)
I think you will find that the summary clearly states that Silk Road is not just illegal, it's super illegal. I find the summary is generally pretty reliable in these matters.
Re:Idiots don't get it. (Score:5, Interesting)
2. It's not too hard to come up with a scenario where a lot of silk road's buisiness is scared off by a few criminal charges like this. Craigslist was no doubt concerned that a few people getting murdered would cause customers to bolt out of irrational fear.
3. This is the first time evidently someone has gotten arrested for it. It probably won't be the last. I'm not familiar with how silk road works. I'm guessing there are barriers to try to prevent law enforcement or other criminals from using it to find out when and where drug transactions are going to be happening. I'm also guessing those barriers are not foolproof.
Re:Idiots don't get it, but cops probably do... (Score:5, Interesting)
3. This is the first time evidently someone has gotten arrested for it. It probably won't be the last. I'm not familiar with how silk road works. I'm guessing there are barriers to try to prevent law enforcement or other criminals from using it to find out when and where drug transactions are going to be happening. I'm also guessing those barriers are not foolproof.
Chances are Silk Road is crawling with cops. But they are not focused on catching buyers or occasional sellers, but are more focused on catching the bigger distributors. Probably they don't even cite Silk as their principal source when prosecuting. Hard to prove much of anything on the internet to a jury, easier to trot in some Joe Undercover cop and have him explain a (probably at least half truthful) account of how he came to know about those deals, without mentioning that first info came via silk.
One off buys are not worth chasing.
He was BUYING from Silk Road (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
not all idiots... (Score:3)
It's just hard to believe that, in an economic sense, even with all the invasive gov't and corporate snooping and tracking...even with all that, SilkRoad exists.
It's a truth of economics...the black market **will certainly** exist in any human system. Heh...in Soviet Russian the side supplies YOU
Seriously look at Soviet Russia. They had strict authoritarian controls inside, and embargoes outside, yet 'yankee blue jeans' and Marlboros were ubiquitous to the point of being parodied (Berserker!)
The black marke
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The funny thing is that it exists and can stay anonymous thanks to a system designed by the United States government (DARPA to be exact). The network still gets most of its funding from the U.S. government.
Re: (Score:3)
I always thought it sounded like a honey trap to me; whether set up intentionally as one or just treated as one retrospectively doesn't matter.
Authorities can sit it out watching the traffic seeing what's going on. Some people will be smart enough to mask their identity effectively, plenty won't. Pick up lots of leads and gather lots of intelligence in the hopes of cornering one of the big guys. Even if the big guys are the smart ones, hope that the stupid ones give them away by association.
Shutting it down
This is stupidly risky (Score:5, Informative)
Trusting that the person you are buying from or selling to is not a cop or is actually going to provide what they claim seems insane. If you are a buying you have to give a place to send the drugs and a seller has to get those drugs to that place. Either option seems fraught with chances to get caught.
This violates every idea about never getting caught; everyone you don't know is a cop, all phones are tapped, etc.
Re:This is stupidly risky (Score:5, Funny)
Howard got caught last summer from the simplest mistake. He had a shitload of drugs sent to his house.
It's always the last mile problem.
Re: (Score:2)
a seller has to get those drugs to that place.
Just put it in a box with sufficient postage and a false return address. Drop it in an unattended mail drop box. Done.
Re: (Score:2)
Boxes of any real mass must be sent from a post office, these days. That means you will be on camera dropping off that box.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you really need ten pounds of MDMA?
Re: (Score:2)
Use multiple smaller boxes.
Re: (Score:2)
Trusting that the person you are buying from or selling to is not a cop or is actually going to provide what they claim seems insane. If you are a buying you have to give a place to send the drugs and a seller has to get those drugs to that place. Either option seems fraught with chances to get caught.
This violates every idea about never getting caught; everyone you don't know is a cop, all phones are tapped, etc.
Sellers have a reputation so if a buyer limits himself to sellers with 99% reputation who have already sold to thousands of other happy customers, like you would do on eBay, it would greatly mitigate the risks.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I hang out on Silk Road, because it's interesting. You have to be pretty fucking dumb to get caught selling as well. Being a buyer is a completely different story though. It's much easier to get caught buying than it is selling.
Whats the web address?
Re:This is stupidly risky (Score:5, Informative)
Get this [torproject.org]
Then, go here: silkroadvb5piz3r.onion
Re: (Score:2)
It's on darknet, so it would be some .onion address. If I knew it I'd tell you - it's not a secret - but I haven't really been curious about darknet beyound the underlying technology of TOR.
Re: (Score:2)
The cool thing about selling on SR is that the seller does not have to trust the buyer is not a cop. It is perfectly safe to sell drugs to cops on SR, because done properly, bitcoin payments can be mixed to the point where the seller is completely anonymous.
Bitcoins add little here - bitcoins are not magic!. Each bitcoin is completely tracible. So you're trusting that the mixing service is not the cops, and that the service keeps no records or otherwise has no way to fold on its users what the cops arrive. Black market sellers of various goods have been using money mules for non-bitcoin payments for many years now - so at best bitcoins are easier?
Mostly though plain old ploice work yields results. TFM was busted, and not through breaking TOR nor following t
User error. (Score:5, Insightful)
If you get caught selling drugs on Silk Road it's entirely your own fault. You can use the site anonymously with Tor. You can receive funds anonymously with Bitcoin. You can send drugs anonymously by dropping it in an unattended mailbox.
Now for the people buying drugs it's a whole different story. You have to show up in person and pick up the drugs. You don't know who you're dealing with, so there could easily be a cop waiting for you when you go to get it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, TFA says he got caught because he had several INCOMING packages intercepted by LE which lead to a raid on his house. TFA does not discuss how he was found out, so we don't know if it was poorly concealed shipping, mail drug dogs, snitch, or his own security fuckup. Neither buying nor selling drugs online is foolproof, there will always be a risk -- just like buying and selling drugs IRL.
He was importing not exporting on Silk. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I imagine the smart ones get them delivered to a vacant house a couple of neighborhoods away.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
But bitcoin transfers are pseudonymously.
Everyone must know about all transactions. But they only see pseudonyms in the form of account ids.
Search for papers analysing the transaction graphs on google scholar for details. I.e. http://eprint.iacr.org/2012/584.pdf
Now exchanging your bitcoins for traditional currency or physical goods without telling the world the real identity behind that pseudonym... thats the hard part.
It just takes one mistake to link your pseudonym to your real identity and all past trans
Re: (Score:3)
Wasn't there some transaction laundry service that would take your bitcoins and split and recombine them and shuffle them around so much that the transaction history was difficult to follow?
morality of the products aside... (Score:2)
It just seems to me that obtaining goods/services physically is just naturally more open to observation/interception. I would think this was obvious.
'n00b' ? (Score:3, Informative)
You misspelled 'idiot'.
Showing crack, and other narcotics. (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't see how the prosecution of one person spells the end for a website, or an entire online trade.
It's a little bit like saying busting one dealer will bring down the entire drug trade in a country. The Silk Road, or other sites like it (which I imagine the savvier users will have switched to as soon as the Silk Road got media heat), will continue for as long as there's a demand.
Just legalise it all already.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a little bit like saying busting one dealer will bring down the entire drug trade in a country. The Silk Road, or other sites like it (which I imagine the savvier users will have switched to as soon as the Silk Road got media heat), will continue for as long as there's a demand.
If you were a cop trying to catch drug dealers with invisibility cloaks, you'd brag and make an example of a stupid one you caught too.
Best line of the article (Score:4)
Re: (Score:2)
I hope this won't kill bitcoin and tor (Score:5, Insightful)
Governments hate anonymity and payments they can't track, and they are just itching for excuses like "drugs" and "child pornography" to push through regulations to outlaw efforts like bitcoin and tor.
Re: (Score:2)
And yet onion networks were developed by DARPA (U.S. government) and Tor is still largely funded by the U.S. government. While I would like to agree with you in principle, in this instance the government made the Silk Road's anonymity possible (of course selling drugs, prositution, hitmen, etc. isn't the primary goal of the network).
Re: (Score:2)
The US military probably has funded the development of many technologies that later became illegal or restricted, including guns, explosives, cryptography, etc.
Re: (Score:3)
They are funding this one ongoing. Accoring to the Wall Street Journal, 80% of Tor's funding comes from the U.S. government.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324677204578185382377144280.html?mod=googlenews_wsj [wsj.com]
His bust has nothing to do with the Silk Road (Score:3)
His bust has to do with interdiction of the package -- which is how they've been finding drug dealers for decades now.
If he left evidence at his home, or on his home computer due to lack of encryption, of use of the Silk Road, then that's why they found it. Sounds like basic human intelligence methods to me -- with no real connection to the Silk Road. Everyone knew these risks were present and I don't think it's going to change much.
Amazing how much ignorance is evident (Score:3)
I am very surprised at how much ignorance is evident about the Silk Road marketplace. Slashdot is supposed "News for Nerds," but there is a lot of technophobia splashed all over the comments section of this story.
1) Silk Road is only accessible via Tor. I would expect the average Slashdot viewer to be more aware of Tor, and the security and anonymity it offers.
2) Silk Road exclusively uses BitCoin for its transactions. To any average crypto-nerd, or even a beginning crypto-nerd like myself, BitCoin is a marvelous application of cryptology in a social environments. Is there really this much ignorance of BitCoin even in a highly-tech-aware venue such as Slashdot?
3) Silk Road customers and sellers and strongly encouraged to encrypt all communications with PGP, and PGP use is routine on that marketplace. Of all things, this should immediately pique the curiousity of any security-minded technophile. Isn't widespread adoption of PGP one of the long-term ideals in the security world?
Security, anonymity, encryption, peer-to-peer ... how come so few people have ever seriously looked at this remarkably post-technological creation? Regardless of your interest in drugs, from a freedom/liberty/technology standpoint, Silk Road is pretty amazing.
Re:Before the libertarians start preaching... (Score:5, Insightful)
A brilliant strategy: A stoned out populace that 1) pays taxes and 2) doesn't give a shit about anything.
What's not to like?
Re:Before the libertarians start preaching... (Score:5, Insightful)
A brilliant strategy: A stoned out populace that 1) pays taxes and 2) doesn't give a shit about anything.
What's not to like?
We already have that, it's called TV. The fact the viewer remains miserable doesn't matter, they docile and are too scared to fight back. The dulling of the masses while the oligarchy destroy the middle-class is all that matters.
2. should be "about anything that matters".
Re:Before the libertarians start preaching... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, Ron Paul wants you to be able to buy drugs on the street or in walmart - as long as you pay taxes on them. Don't let the slashdot paullowers tell you differently, their interest is in getting you to pay more taxes so they can pay less.
And what's wrong with that? We quit spending money on this pointless "War on Drugs", and start making money off the Rastafarians. And we might finally have space in our jail system for "Real" criminals. The only people that should be against this is the Cartels and the ATF.
Re:Before the libertarians start preaching... (Score:5, Insightful)
The only people that should be against this is the Cartels and the ATF.
and Border Patrol, the Tobacco Industry, the Alcoholic Beverage Industry. Definetly, will help the junk food companies. Doritos and Taco Bell will make a killing.
Re:Before the libertarians start preaching... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You can purchase Marijuana Tax Stamps in Texas which means that you can now legally purchase Marijuana, sorta.
Or at least if you get caught you can pay the tax pretrial and have it dismissed.
Re:Before the libertarians start preaching... (Score:4, Informative)
It is legal to grow your own plants and transfer up to a ounce of pot to another person in Colorado (passed last election). The government has until July (if I remember correctly) to come up with the framework for the full retail sale of Marijuana. Washington state is also working in a framework to sell legal pot.
Re: (Score:2)
The Texas MJ Stamp though is an accidental legalization due to how Texas defines double jeopardy, you have actually been able to buy them since 2008.
http://www.ndsn.org/nov96/drugtax.html [ndsn.org]
Re: (Score:3)
The only people that should be against this is the Cartels and the ATF.
Alcohol is fully legal - and yet there are quite a few moonshiners out there.
Making drugs legal won't stop the issues, it will merely change them, like it did when they legalized alcohol.
Re: (Score:3)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Legalizing marijuana would not suddenly make the nation's workforce drop out.
Also, legalizing pot wouldn't immediately make it ok for employees to be stoned at work. Alcohol is legal and yet most employers don't allow employees to be drunk at work. Businesses can still make sobriety a condition of employment.
Re:Before the libertarians start preaching... (Score:5, Informative)
I can get an ounce of marijuana for $40 and it ain't bad. Alone that would last me over a month. There is no way in hell I would ever have to steal to support my habit.
If I am so goddamn broke that I cannot afford $40 a month for Pot then I am doing something so horribly wrong that theft would not solve my problems.
Re: (Score:2)
The only people that should be against this is the Cartels and the ATF. And businesses that would like to have employees that show up and work.
Businesses already deal with employees that show up drunk, or don't show up at all.
Re:Before the libertarians start preaching... (Score:5, Informative)
Two, while it is true that legal drugs are not necessarily cheap, a competitive market that isn't taxed or regulated to death is going to be considerably cheaper, especially if such actions result in the loss of control by cartels.
Three, you seem to think that the legal availability of drugs will result in increased drug abuse. The opposite is probably the case. Being legalized means that addicts can more openly seek treatment. I've also seen some good arguments that legalization of cocaine would pretty much destroy the meth market.
Re:Before the libertarians start preaching... (Score:4, Informative)
All the "pot heads" I know are engineers (and various other professionals). They all turn up to work on time. They all do a good job. They are all interested in working for a living. And I bet half the people you know who are "reliable", "responsible" and all other sorts of things ending in -ible also have smoked or do smoke pot.
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't say alcohol is great and drugs are bad. Alcohol clearly has horrible detrimental affects on our society, and clearly legal alcohol does result in a monetary and mental and physical impact on well-being. Almo
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget the giant private prison system in the U.S.
Re:Before the libertarians start preaching... (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow, that's an impressive display of logic!
The "quit throwing people in jail for pot (and other drugs)" position is somehow "removing your power in the name of liberties while giving more power to the wealthy."
How about this position: complete legalization of all drugs. Not just "medical MJ", not just "decriminalization", but full scale, "buy organic pot brownies at Whole Foods" legalization. No special sin taxes, just ordinary sales tax like any other item up for sale.
That's the libertarian position. Any talk of "tax it just like alcohol" is a sop thrown in for those sitting on the fence who might need a little something in exchange for letting go of their anti-drug prejudices.
There's lots of potential problems with the implementation of this policy, but "removing your power in the name of liberties while giving more power to the wealthy" sure as heck ain't one of them.
Re: (Score:2)
How about this position: complete legalization of all drugs. Not just "medical MJ", not just "decriminalization", but full scale, "buy organic pot brownies at Whole Foods" legalization.
Check back in about 3 years and see how Colorado is doing ;-)
No special sin taxes, just ordinary sales tax like any other item up for sale.
Well, OK, we are going to tax it specially, and it will, like liquor, only be available in special stores.
Re: (Score:2)
It is certainly reasonable to ask users to self fund any (or at least some) of any societal costs due to the action or behavior. We have user fees for dozens of things - cars, planes, hikers, hunters. Drug use really doesn't need to be excepted from that.
Except for caffeine, of course. That's different.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, OK, we are going to tax it specially, and it will, like liquor, only be available in special stores.
And just like liquor taxes, the fiction of using the tax on drugs for any drug rehab/educational purposes will be proposed, ballyhooed, and ignored in real life. The money will be siphoned off to pay more government employees.
Re: Before the libertarians start preaching... (Score:5, Insightful)
"removing your power in the name of liberties while giving more power to the wealthy" is a problem of the Libertarian philosophy in general. They propose to abolish or equalize political power while pretending economic power is not a form of power at all...thus making the wealthy into oligarchs with absolute power over their domain.
Re: Before the libertarians start preaching... (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh, cut the crap and demagoguery.
Most libertarians would be happy to turn back the clock on government regulations and government taxes to more traditionally American levels, for the simple reason that the current situation is not sustainable. Progressives are so much into sustainability, why don't you start with finances?
Re: Before the libertarians start preaching... (Score:4, Insightful)
That I'm fine with. Kill social and moral regulation entirely...If I want to marry another dude or shoot up drugs that's not your concern....end our imperial wars...and restore same financial regulations and taxes. Hell if you end the wars you may not need to do much with taxes....though I'd still favor a system that promotes greater wealth equality. High rate flat tax with the first 30k or so exempt, something like that...or just a wall st. transaction tax...
That's what most socialists want....or at least where we'd like to start or actions we would strongly support.
In America it seems that most people who identify as Libertarians are anarcho-capitalists...So as an anarcho-syndicalist I agree completely on the political side of their ideology, but cannot tolerate the cultural/economic aspect.
Re:Before the libertarians start preaching... (Score:5, Interesting)
As a small business owner, I haven't always been able to afford insurance for myself. In Mexico I can go to the pharmacy and just buy the medicine I need, no expensive doctor trip required. Sure a retard could OD on something or mix the wrong things, but they could just as easily step in front of a buss too.
There's a problem with over prescribing antibiotics, I concede that. However, ask anyone who's worked in many doctor offices. The Drug Sales Rep shows up, drops off samples, sings the praises of the new wonder drug, and the Doc invariably increases prescriptions of the damn drug, so it's not like this shit is an exact science folks, otherwise marketing like that would have no effect on prescriptions. All I'm saying is that I should be able to get my meds refilled without visiting a doctor if I don't care to (or have the money to).
Re: (Score:2)
That sounds... sintaxtic!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
There's lots of potential problems with the implementation of this policy
I can think of a big one. In five to ten years we would have ads with the slogan "Take Fakitol, it won't cure your cancer, but will make sure you don't give a shit about it". Once you legalize all drugs, there is a humongous incentive for big pharma to find the most addictive stuff they can and sell it to you, preferably when you are young and inexperienced. I'm not sure I want to live in that world.
Re:Before the libertarians start preaching... (Score:5, Informative)
Getting taxing drug sales is just a way of getting more people to consider the argument. Here are the better arguments.
The fact of the matter is that people who want to do drugs, do drugs. They will find a way to get access to them. Because it can only be sold by shady individuals, it is easy for these dealers to push harder drugs or spike their drugs with more dangerous elements. In other words, you are making the health risks even worse than they were already by banning drugs. If drugs were legal, they could be make by reputable companies that have something to loose if they make bad products.
Black markets form around banned products that are in demand. Since drug dealers cannot go to the police with their problems, they take matters into their own hands. This causes a lot of violence between the various dealers. By removing the ban, you can potentially decrease the violence (and collateral damage) associated with drugs.
Because their is a high risk associated with dealing/making drugs, drugs can be priced at a premium. This is why gangs and cartels use drugs to fund their enterprises. By making drugs legal, you lower the cost of drugs such that gangs and cartels can no longer justify taking the risk. You essentially defund the gangs and cartels. Without funds, they become significantly smaller threat to society.
All in all, if individuals are going to do drugs anyway, wouldn't you rather it be out in the open instead of a dark hole? In the open, the government has some level of control over it, it can be made as safe as possible, and bring in some level of income. In a dark hole, it will fund violent crime, be extremely costly and futile to stop, and be increasingly unsafe.
Societies best way to stop drug use it not to ban it but to educate in order to change cultural norms. Look at smoking. At no point did we ban it but a significantly lower percentage of people use it today than they use to. Of course, banning is easier and it makes people feel good. People don't usually like to take the hard (but effective) route. They want a easy solution right now.
Re: (Score:3)
The world is not divided neatly into "the straight edge public" and "junkies who will do anything for drugs".
Perhaps not, but I would argue the decrease in violent crime, being able to zero out cost of "The War on Drugs", being able to make drug use as safe as possible, and the ability to regulate the industry is worth the possibility that there are a few more drug users or the current drug users do more drugs.
We best off making drug use as open and safe as possible now and spendinf more time and resources on educating and encouraging people to stay away from drugs from the start. It is a cultural issue not a cri
Re: (Score:2)
No, their interest is getting you to pay more out of your own pocket so they can pay less. There really is little reason why I should have to pay for your excessive consumption of health care, insurance, or government services. You want that stuff? You pay for it.
Re:Great! A place where I can buy nothing! (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, for some people, their "normal" is pretty terrible and anything that can help them escape it is worth it.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree that these escapist type are the last people that should be using drugs. However, I don't think they make the largest portion of the drug-seeking population. Drugs are like life-enhancers (I'm using that term "enhance" with a neutral connotation). They can enhance your ability to party, they can enhance your ability to study, enhance your ability to have sex. Watch out curious folk, sometimes the intended consequence is reversed and you will be left with the notorious "bad trip," or perhaps even dea
Re:Great! A place where I can buy nothing! (Score:5, Insightful)
You can get anything from Silk Road. People focus on the drug aspect, but you can buy counterfeit coupons, fake IDs, real IDs, software, pr0n, weapons (until recently), school assignments, hit contracts, and the list goes on.
And no one gives a shit that you don't like to get high, it's the principle of being able to do whatever you want with your money and your body. So quit worrying about why the rest of us like to get fucked up and stop asking questions that are nothing more than your thinly veiled criticism of someone else's life choices.
Re: (Score:2)
So quit worrying about why the rest of us like to get fucked up and stop asking questions that are nothing more than your thinly veiled criticism of someone else's life choices.
This times 1000...if you hadn't posted AC I'd mod you up...
Re: (Score:2)
Weapons until recently? What happened? You'd expect a surge in the trade with all the gun nuts getting antsy these days.
Re:Great! A place where I can buy nothing! (Score:5, Insightful)
That's great, as long as you don't begrudge others who do enjoy them. Imprisoning people who have fun in a way you disapprove of is no way to run a supposedly free country.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And you do feel the same way regarding coffee, soda pop, activities that cause your body to release endorphins, and other such socially acceptable stimulants, right?
Right?
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, no. Caffeine and like that does little for me either. I sometimes respond to those with increases in a tired or sleepy feeling. I suppose that symptom set means something though I'm not quite sure what. I do like sodas but only because I like the way they taste and feel. Coffee, not so much... I like iced coffee and frapaccinos... wish Starbuck's would make them at least half as sweet though. It's just too much sugar for me sometimes. (My favorite way is to get a mocha-frape and then take i
Re: (Score:2)
No. I just don't think I respond the same way to drugs and other stimulation the same way. Sex is a very different feeling and drive for me than drugs.
And it's not like I never tried drugs. I totally did. It just wasn't fun.
Re: (Score:2)
Definitely no cracks here.
Of course not, it was all seized in the raid.
(bee-tee-dubs, you don't need to pluralize crack).
Re: (Score:2)
Oh but there are cracks! The cops are totally on top of this situation and will have it shut down any day now and you'd be an idiot to use it, yes sir!
Re: (Score:2)
Cars have brakes and steering so one squeeze of the gas doesn't send an irretrievable death projectile on it's way, hammers have limited range. You posted anon because you said a dumbass thing.
Re:FUD (Score:5, Informative)
I use Silk Road regularly in Australia, and the site gives you all the mechanisms you need to stay protected on the electronic side of things. You're still stupid if you think that importing MDMA and Cocaine from overseas and having it go THROUGH CUSTOMS is a good idea. The site even says "Hey guys, don't ship this shit to your name or a post box that can be linked to you because surprise surprise, COPS CAN OPEN YOUR MAIL!"
There are many great sellers that do the importing for you in Aus. The cost is higher, but that's the cost of not having the risk of going through customs. Silk Road is not "dying" just because of one idiot being exactly that. I will continue to buy off Silk Road safely, because I'm not retarded and know how to follow simple instructions.
Anon Coward for obvious reasons....