> Aside from offering a hands-on account of how the Silk Road worked from a dealer’s perspective, Duch’s story calls into question claims that the Silk Road reduced violence by moving drug sales from the street to the relative safety of the internet. Duch’s testimony seemed to suggest that he wouldn’t have sold drugs at all if it weren’t for the Silk Road...
Wow. What a stupendous flaw in logic and reasoning. I guess I'm glad that the fool who wrote this isn't in charge of building bridges or something, where his astonishing stupidity could directly get people killed. He'll just have to settle for indirectly getting people killed by parroting state propaganda and perpetuating the war on drugs.
Obviously, the fact that different people were dealing the drugs on the Silk Road, than on the street, does not in any way serve as evidence that Silk Road did not reduce the risk to both dealers and especially users, in buying drugs.
I mean, it seems like Ulbricht really did put out hits on some people - or at least the state is pressing ahead with the charges anyway, and if that's the case he is a danger to society and needs to be locked up. But in terms of harm reduction Silk Road was pretty awesome (fwiw, I never used the service). Not only did it derisk buying and selling drugs, in many cases it would have taken money directly out of the pockets of large drug cartels (i.e. in cases where they didn't control the supply anyway, only the distribution). That's a cause everyone should get behind.
The whole ordeal here just drives the point home, that the drug war is not at all about harm reduction for anybody, not users, certainly not dealers, and not even society at large. I'm not sure the drug war is about anything at this point. It's just a self-perpetuating relic of the past, and it needs to be put down ASAFP.
I assume many drug users transitioned from patronizing violent street dealers, to non-violent silk road dealers. In the long run, the violent street dealers would lose their customer base and go out of business. Seems like a good thing to me.
I'm fairly ignorant with the workings of the drug markets but is there any scenario in which a cartel controls distribution and not supply? It seems like by increasing the demand for drugs, the cartels who actually produce the drugs will actually be better off with Silk Road operating.
Probably not many. But, the point is that they can't use violence to corner the market for distribution anymore, with something like Silk Road around. Provided dealers remain anonymous, there is no "turf". This simultaneously cuts down on drug-related violence, and takes money out of the pocket of cartels by making the drug market more competitive.
It's not perfect, because if they still control supply they can still exert pressure on distribution. And, while Silk Road may be anonymous, obviously buying drugs in bulk from the cartels is not. But it's a step in the right direction, however small.
Why should cartels be involved at all? Unorganized suppliers and distributors could have run the whole market. I don't see any mention of cartels or gangs in the article.
Where do you obtain the raw product from? This dealer was buying $6000 bricks of heroin, so the only people being cut out were the middlemen just above the street dealers.
The cartels are absolutely still the people being funded by this activity. Or in the case of heroin organisations like the Taliban.
There is a substantial difference between growing a bit of weed to sell and the industrial scale production required to sell the amounts of narcotics that SR is talking about. Cartels still violently control the means of production and entry into the United States, increasing demand for their products increases their profit and motive for violence.
Interesting, I never realized that the Taliban reversed its position on heroin and now supports its production. Thank God we invaded.
Anyway, this [0] Quora answer, specifically pointing out the New York/New Jersey market, states that most heroin in the US comes from South America. I suspect that the CIA played a big part in creating these cartels in the first place, and if it reverted to individual buyers getting their supply directly from the producers via the Silk Road or another bitcoin/Tor market, the cartels wouldn't need to exist at all.
Look, I'm as pro-legalisation as they come, but this sort of delusional reasoning is hurting our case, because it makes us all look stupid. Large scale poppy and coca production requires resources far beyond a single farmer growing, processing and shipping envelopes from the jungle in SA. The reason cartels control manufacture, import and wholesale distribution is because it requires significant logistical, financial and security resources to operate these systems at scale. How many coffee farmers do you know of that ship their beans from their huts? 'Economies of scale' is a real thing. Oh and the idea that the CIA somehow 'created' cartels is straight out tinfoil hat territory. 'Occasionally aligning forces to achieve a common goal' is a far way from 'create cartels'.
Sorry you feel it makes you look stupid. For what it's worth, I'm merely playing the devil's advocate and I'm not entirely sure where I stand on all of these issues.
I'm not saying a single farmer could vertically integrate from opium to heroin, but aren't small businesses possible? They would certainly benefit from flexibility and being under-the-radar in a way that could offset the negatives of not having an economy of scale.
And on your last point, I didn't mean that the CIA went in and set up shop, first "creating" the cartel. But a single buyer (possible), or at least one who allows specific individuals to operate (almost definite), certainly helps in the creation, so to speak, of the larger criminal organization by giving their suppliers or smugglers a hand up on those who have to worry about running afoul of the DEA and other authorities.
> But in terms of harm reduction Silk Road was pretty awesome (fwiw, I never used the service). Not only did it derisk buying and selling drugs...
I don't see how it follows that derisking drug sales necessarily didn't increase harm. Yes, if you were selling drugs on Silk Road you were less likely to get into a violent confrontation with a client. Yes, if you were buying drugs on Silk Road you were less likely to get into a violent confrontation with the dealer. But the claim here is that Silk Road also dramatically reduced barriers to entry for both buyers and sellers for very serious drugs.
Heroin is no joke and no amount of pseudo-libertarian drug legalization arguments make it any safer. If Silk Road made it available to a dramatically broader audience that otherwise wouldn't have been able to get it, the harm to society, on balance, must have been enormous.
> The whole ordeal here just drives the point home, that the drug war is not at all about harm reduction for anybody, not users, certainly not dealers, and not even society at large.
Heroin isn't weed. It destroys lives of its users and certainly harms the society at large. To say otherwise is preposterous, at best.
I like how you conveniently ignored the parent's comments about cartels.
Also I don't understand the use of "pseudo-libertarian" here? Drug usage is a personal decision and it's none of state's business. That is the very definition of libertarianism.
It has nothing to do with Silk Road but since you brought it up, legalising drug usage is for the greater good. You see the real danger does not originate from violent confrontations but the circles the the usage drags you in. If it was legally available, there wouldn't be need for an individual to get involved for their recreational needs.
On a medical perspective, it is common not to help out a friend having adverse reactions to a drug used simply because it is incriminating if you call the hospital and then stay with him/her.
And as if this wasn't enough, people just don't seem to get that the war on drugs has been lost in every continent. It will just go on and on and on. You can make it safer, peaceful and prevent it to be a source of revenue for actual crimes, or just don't give a crap and be irresponsible.
> Drug usage is a personal decision and it's none of state's business.
I agree with this up to the point where drug use becomes drug addiction. Of course this doesn't happen to everyone who uses drugs recreationally, but if it does, then it's not so much a decision but a relentless compulsion that thoroughly decimates one's freedom to choose.
Whether it's the state's business or not, I suppose that depends on whether one feels the state has some responsibility towards the mental and physical health of its citizens. I'm very much in favour of harm reduction programmes for drug addicts, rather than the prevailing trend of terribly harsh punishment. Some may feel that this sort of thing is too paternalistic and interfering but it's certainly better than imprisonment.
> Drug usage is a personal decision and it's none of state's business.
Not unless the drug has been empirically found to have a high probability of harming the individual and a high probability of spreading through communities. Then it's very much state's business because it becomes a matter of social preservation.
> I don't understand the use of "pseudo-libertarian".
"Pseudo-libertarian" is the kind of libertarian that doesn't account of empirical evidence in their arguments.
Yea we get it. Drug are bad mmmkay. The fact is that the drug war has done nothing to reduce their use, and it provides a huge source of revenue for actual violent criminals.
> Heroin isn't weed. It destroys lives of its users
Well, no more than any other addiction to opiates. The issue with heroin addiction is that 1) it's illegal; (in many places) 2) it's expensive as hell. Clean Heroin by itself has no majorly bad side effects that aren't associated with other (legal and regularly used/abused) opiates like oxy/hydrocodene. Constipation and cotton mouth are about all that comes to mind. The risks are the same as any other street drugs; bad batches, reusing needles, dirty needles, and unmonitored usage.
I'm not saying heroin is good, by any means, but it's not as bad as it's sold as.
This isn't really true, pharmacologically. One way to measure the safety of a drug is the therapeutic index [1], basically the ratio of the lethal dose to the effective dose. It's basically how much of a margin of error you have when administering the drug before it'll kill you. Morphine has a TI of around 70, marijuana and LSD are > 1000, codeine is 20, alcohol is around 10, and heroin is 5 [2].
And even lower again is Paracetamol/Acetaminophen (Tylenol if you're in the US), with the fatal dosage being as low as 3 times the recommended dosage [1]. I can walk into a pharmacy here and buy enough of it to shut down my liver for less than a pound.
I get what you're saying, but if you're talking about overdosing, then I think it's fair to say Heroin is absolutely lethal. But if used responsibly (I know, I know) it's safe.
Also a sibling comment maccard. Also google "krokodil".
In short it's not heroin that destroys lives, it's idiotic policy which makes heroin (or other opiates) very expensive (destroying users' careers and relationships) or unavailable (destroying users' health via them trying to substitute it with something much worse).
The only real threat of opiates is overdosing, which comes from increasing tolerance and uncertain quality of a drug. Making opiates legal and quality-checked and allowing to develop substances that would reduce possibility of increasing tolerance would make opiates just as safe as weed, and certainly safer than alcohol.
But that wouldn't work, because... what? I'm curious.
In support of what you're saying: many countries (but not the US) take a less punitive approach, preferring to focus on harm reduction.
For example in the UK, needle exchanges - places where you can get clean needles and other paraphenalia - have been well established since the late 1980s to help protect people who inject drugs against the infection risks of needle sharing. It's been credited with greatly reducing the prevalence of HIV and hepatitis viruses amongst that population.
Similarly, heroin addicts are often prescribed synthetic opiates such as methadone and buprenorphine, to prevent their reliance on dealers. This doesn't much reduce deaths from overdose, but does seem to prevent societal harm. Indeed if you are charged with theft or robbery and it turns out that it was to help feed your opiate addiction, it's not uncommon for the judge to offer access to a treatment programme in lieu of a custodial sentence.
There is however a problem with user compliance. Some recent research over the past decade or so has been in 'contingency management', where addicts are offered financial rewards to attend or comply with such treatments. It's very controversial and so far has had mixed results, but the idea is that the overall cost to the state will be reduced, in that a small 'bribe' can put people on the right path, hopefully leading to feeling more intrinsically rewarded by the success of the treatment, and that is less expensive than medical treatment later on.
But despite all this, as you imply, it does need the political will behind it to have any good effect.
Heroin isn't weed. It destroys lives of its users and certainly harms the society at large. To say otherwise is preposterous, at best.
deciplex didn't say it wasn't. Read the phrase again.
In fact, it's exactly because heroin is harmful that an approach that actually has a chance of reducing its use - unlike the aforementioned drug war - is in dire need.
It can, but we have pretty abundant evidence now that the treatment we chose for the threat of heroin, the drug war, has a much worse net effect on society than the disease of unchallenged heroin addiction.
there is no logical arguments behind keeping it illegal. Just emotional stuff. That's the problem i dislike hard liners on drugs legality so much. They are like cult members and can't talk to their reason.
How is it your business if someone's injecting heroin? Is this your business? By the Constituion? By comparison to alcohol or weed? None of your business. The same way like guns. I can buy gun to hurt you, and that's fine, but can't get some chemicals to hurt myself? Where is logic here brother?
There is none. Just emotional BS. Get over it. As crash in 1929 legalized alcohol and we don't have beer dealers shooting each other (we used to have them!!!). As crash in 2008 legalized weed in large parts of the country, the same way next crash will legalize rest of it.
In this economy I don't have so much money to spend on somebody's else life. Sorry. And now start your emotional cry.
Wow. What a stupendous flaw in logic and reasoning. I guess I'm glad that the fool who wrote this isn't in charge of building bridges or something, where his astonishing stupidity could directly get people killed. He'll just have to settle for indirectly getting people killed by parroting state propaganda and perpetuating the war on drugs.
Obviously, the fact that different people were dealing the drugs on the Silk Road, than on the street, does not in any way serve as evidence that Silk Road did not reduce the risk to both dealers and especially users, in buying drugs.
I mean, it seems like Ulbricht really did put out hits on some people - or at least the state is pressing ahead with the charges anyway, and if that's the case he is a danger to society and needs to be locked up. But in terms of harm reduction Silk Road was pretty awesome (fwiw, I never used the service). Not only did it derisk buying and selling drugs, in many cases it would have taken money directly out of the pockets of large drug cartels (i.e. in cases where they didn't control the supply anyway, only the distribution). That's a cause everyone should get behind.
The whole ordeal here just drives the point home, that the drug war is not at all about harm reduction for anybody, not users, certainly not dealers, and not even society at large. I'm not sure the drug war is about anything at this point. It's just a self-perpetuating relic of the past, and it needs to be put down ASAFP.