Darknet drug sales have risen massively since SR was shut down

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by 0dev, Aug 4, 2014.

  1. 0dev macrumors 68040

    0dev

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2009
    Location:
    127.0.0.1
    #1
    From BBC News.

    This should be a surprise to no one of course, shut down a popular site and many more will take its place, and with the publicity from the SR shutdown it's just the Streisand effect as per usual.

    I for one am glad to see technology continuing to fight prohibition. It's a policy that just doesn't work and the fact you can order any drug from your computer on next day delivery like buying a book from Amazon despite the best efforts of the authorities to shut it all down is the perfect demonstration of that.

    The darknet markets also offer a far safer way to get drugs than using street dealers as the sellers have a very big incentive to actually provide a good product that's not impure and cut with harmful substances since these sites all have feedback systems like eBay. This makes them a great tool in harm reduction.

    Tor has essentially enabled the creation of a massive open drug marketplace the authorities can't touch right now. Even if one of these markets was shut down you'd easily be able to use another one. It's just excellent.
     
  2. chown33 macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    #2
    It's a real-world example of an unregulated marketplace: capitalist free-marketism in a nutshell. There are no regulations imposed by an "authority" (viz. government), unfettered customer feedback is the primary quality-control mechanism, and reputation is all.

    On the down side, if you screw the wrong people bad enough, you may well end up physically injured or even dead (privatized law enforcement, of privatized laws, with few penalty options).
     
  3. 0dev thread starter macrumors 68040

    0dev

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2009
    Location:
    127.0.0.1
    #3
    Yep, a true free market. It's a wonderful sight to see.

    Luckily the physical violence isn't really applicable to the darknet since anonymity and OPSEC are key for both vendors and customers.
     
  4. TechGod macrumors 68040

    TechGod

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2014
    Location:
    New Zealand
  5. G51989 macrumors 68030

    G51989

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2012
    Location:
    NYC NY/Pittsburgh PA
    #5
    So you don't support peoples freedom to choose what they want to do?
     
  6. obeygiant macrumors 68040

    obeygiant

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    totally cool
    #6
    Drugs support me sometimes...
     
  7. TechGod macrumors 68040

    TechGod

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2014
    Location:
    New Zealand
    #7
    No. I don't support how large of a burden they or on our healthcare system. Especially since New Zealand is in increasing debt anyways.

    I wouldn't mind drug users if they were exempt from government funded health care though.
     
  8. G51989 macrumors 68030

    G51989

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2012
    Location:
    NYC NY/Pittsburgh PA
    #8
    So I assume you would also support banning smoking, alcohol and junk food?
     
  9. TechGod macrumors 68040

    TechGod

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2014
    Location:
    New Zealand
    #9
    Smoking- not banning persay just putting an insane tax on it to pay off how much it costs the public healthcare sector.

    Alcohol and junk food? Nah. Not as big of a problem as other drugs.


    You seem to be taking my stance to the extreme.

    ----------

    Thats fine and all, have fun with drugs, but my point is how much they are a burden to the public health sector.
     
  10. G51989 macrumors 68030

    G51989

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2012
    Location:
    NYC NY/Pittsburgh PA
    #10
    I don't know how New Zealand works, but the US of A already has an insane tax on Cigs, they have shot up form under 50 cents a pack in 1991, to over 8 dollars a pack today, that insane tax already exists here.

    I quit smoking recently, and I can assure you, America has an insane tax on Cigs already, it has resulted in a bit of a reduction in Smoking, but tens of millions still do it.

    I would argue Alcohol and junk food cost the taxpayer of Murica even more money than a stoner does.


    I am taking it to a logical perspective.

    Its clear to me, you don't think people should make their own choices. So if you hate soft drugs, you clearly hate alcohol and smoking just as much. In my book anyway.

    ----------

    So Obese people should be cut off from healthcare to?
     
  11. localoid macrumors 68020

    localoid

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2007
    Location:
    America's Third World
    #11
    Ding, ding, ding!

    Annual health care expenditures for alcohol-related problems amount to $22.5 billion. The total cost of alcohol problems is $175.9 billion a year (compared to $114.2 billion for other drug problems and $137 billion for smoking).

    Source...
     
  12. noodlemanc macrumors regular

    noodlemanc

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Location:
    Australasia
    #12
    If you're concerned about financial cost, then you should be for the legalisation of drugs. By having drugs illegal the police have to spend loads of resources tracking down drug users/dealers, giving them trials and more-often-than-not paying for their defence, then keeping them in prison. That's very expensive.

    And that's just the direct costs -- the opportunity costs are immeasurable, but some of them include:

    *Having a black market for drugs puts money and power in the hands of gangs, resulting in violent crime. The police have to deal with all that crap too, increasing spending on law enforcement even more.

    *Since drugs are illegal the dealing of them is a much more expensive and risky business to go into, pushing up the price of drugs. The pice increase means that people will be more likely to commit crimes to fund their habit, such as theft. It also means they have less disposable income to spend in other areas of the economy.

    *When people go to prison for drug offences they are much more likely to get into other sorts of crime, as they are forced to spend months or years with hardened convicts. Again, more money needed for the cops.

    *When people are in prison doing time for a drug offence they aren't working, or contributing to the economy in any way.

    *Having a drug conviction can ruin someone's career, or stop them from getting one started in the first place, and thus they may not be able to contribute as much to the economy as they could have. Additionally, if they can't get a job they'll be much more likely to lean on government welfare programs to survive.


    Do you think that the above would cost less than paying for the healthcare of a few drug users that overdose or abuse hard drugs on a regular basis?
     
  13. roadbloc macrumors G3

    roadbloc

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Location:
    UK
    #13
    Yep. And like Pirate Bay there will be nothing anybody can do about it. Each time it goes it'll come back stronger and harder to get rid of.
     
  14. TechGod macrumors 68040

    TechGod

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2014
    Location:
    New Zealand
    #14
    Thanks for this informative post, you bring up a lot of points I simply did not consider. Sorry if I sound dumb:eek:, I'm realising I should really do a bit more research before posting what I did.
     
  15. 0dev thread starter macrumors 68040

    0dev

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2009
    Location:
    127.0.0.1
    #15
    Also do not forget if drugs were legal the government would be able to tax them like they already do with alcohol and tobacco anyway. They are the ones saying no to that money and choosing to put it in the hands of the black market instead and as a result the black market is booming.
     
  16. chown33 macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    #16
    Payment transactions were done using Bitcoin, so the anonymity there is as good as Bitcoin's anonymity in general.

    What I don't understand is how goods were shipped anonymously. Silk Road held Bitcoins in escrow until receipt of goods was confirmed. But did Silk Road also act an an escrow agent or anonymizing relay for the shipped goods? Without some kind of goods relay point, I don't see how a recipient could avoid needing to provide a real shipping address to the seller, thus breaking the anonymity barrier.

    I'm aware of mailbox rental companies, but they are just as subject to subpoena as any other business. So I can see how the financial side can be anonymized using cryptography, but I don't see how the shipping side can be made anywhere near the same level of anonymity.
     
  17. Mord macrumors G4

    Mord

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2003
    Location:
    UK
    #17
    Nope, they're a much bigger problem.

    http://www.drugabuse.gov/publicatio...hundreds-billions-dollars-in-increased-health

    That's the first link that came up on google, the US spends absurd amounts on enforcement so that'll likely be most of that figure yet it's comparable to alcohol.

    Seriously man, do some research. The trouble with withdrawing healthcare is that it usually costs more. People who're left to die or be chronically ill tend to be a drain on society, they can't work properly, their relatives are distressed. It just doesn't make economic sense to cut them off just because you don't like the idea of paying for their healthcare.

    Inadequate healthcare is pretty much the biggest harm of prohibition, without fear of legal repercussion the harms of drugs would be greatly reduced.


    Edit: Just spotted your responses to others, kudos for listening, it's not often people engage properly and have an open mind :)
     
  18. TechGod macrumors 68040

    TechGod

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2014
    Location:
    New Zealand
    #18
    I've always felt that there is no point arguing if what I said was proven as wrong.

    I was going to point you to my last post but you beat me to it:p
     
  19. 0dev thread starter macrumors 68040

    0dev

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2009
    Location:
    127.0.0.1
    #19
    You do send a name and address through the market, encrypted with PGP. So the vendor will get your info but if they follow the rules they should delete your info straight after your order is shipped. You could also use a rented mailbox as you mentioned, yes the police could subpoena those but they could also search your house, fact is they still add a layer of anonymity since you're not sending your real address to the vendor.

    When you deposit the bitcoin into the market you're advised to use a "laundering" service like Bitcoin Fog to anonymise the transaction. That makes it a lot harder to track the bitcoin back to you.

    So basically unless you and the vendor don't follow the etiquette you should have a pretty decent level of anonymity.
     

Share This Page