5 ms·

Sellers of drugs, will ALWAYS sell drugs, both illegal and legal. Buyers/Users of drugs will ALWAYS buy/use drugs, illegal or legal. It is an interaction betw

Sellers of drugs, will ALWAYS sell drugs, both illegal and legal. Buyers/Users of drugs will ALWAYS buy/use drugs, illegal or legal. It is an interaction between humans of Earth, no government or entity, no system or blocks will ever stop it. Shut down the internet, it will continue. Short of a massive purge of life, drugs will never go away. If you somehow...were able to shut down the "darkweb", it would move into something else that authorities are unaware of. On a whim, if I desired, I can purchase any drug I want, probably get it today, without using the internet. The war on drugs has no end. Stop trying to pretend you (the lawmakers) have never tried an illegal substance. Even the most powerful public figure in the world (Obama) has admitted to using illegal substances at one point in his life. Government: It's time to sit down, shut up, stop wasting the taxpayers money and leave it alone.

Lawtonfogle 10y ago
Now apply this logic to other things traded on the darkweb.
- 15charlimit 10y ago
  If you actually want to stop the trade of anything, you go shut down the source - not the distribution channel that lets you keep tabs on what's being traded where, between whom. See the somewhat recent media hysteria and stupidity around craigslist/similar sites and prostitution. The only thing accomplished was driving the distribution channels to other, less visible, less-easily-tracked places. Everything that was happening before is still happening now.
jswny 10y ago
I tend to feel the same way. These types of things are inevitable, you are never going to stop them from happening. However, when debating this point, I have a hard time defending my point when someone else says "so should we just not do anything? Wouldn't that increase the illegal activity? Should we let people buy guns too? Where do you draw the line?" I have to say, I'm not sure what to say about that. If the government did not actively fight this, successful or not, would it cause the markets and illegal drug users to proliferate?
- stonemetal 10y ago
  First off if it were legal how would there be an increase in illegal activity? There probably would be an increase in drug use if that is what you mean. The government could still fight it, but it would be a health and human services problem at that point. Which means a lot less high stakes do anything to not get caught crime going on. It could be paid for by taxes on the drugs. There would be fewer deaths from drug overdoses because quality and purity could be regulated. Drugs with little to no long term side effects would probably become popular. Drugs that have harsher side effects and highly addictive properties would probably still be stigmatized because of their effects. The line would get drawn the same place it does for gambling and alcohol. Occasional use by grownups is OK, if it becomes life impacting then rehab and abstinence is probably best for you.
  - alsetmusic 10y ago
    > First off if it were legal how would there be an increase in illegal activity? There probably would be an increase in drug use if that is what you mean. I think the hypothetical here is that illegal activities could rise in search of money to feed drug addiction. This would come in the form of theft, robbery, etc. It's not as if no one ever stole money to buy food.
    - brokenmachine 10y ago
      I don't know about the premise that there would be more people stealing to feed addiction. Is there a significant problem with people stealing now to feed alcohol addiction?
      - alsetmusic 10y ago
        I'm only saying that a need creates a motive. When I was eighteen and addicted to cigarettes, I scrounged every inch of my apartment for coins to buy a pack. I imagine an addiction to harder drugs would create a greater need. I only pontificated on what I thought the parent might mean. I didn't state a fact.
- 10y ago
wrong_variable 10y ago
I think its a reflection of having govt dominated by lawyers. Economist and social scientists would see this as a failure of markets, and do some analysis to figure out a balanced approach to create some sort of Laffer curve. I think going the other direction and allowing a free for all situation with substances would be a problem too. There is a reason why its in my interest to not have my neighbor stockpile chlorine in his basement. The best example I can think of is the Israeli govt or the Chinese govt. Where the Israeli govt since they actually have a serious terrorism problem, do not have things like the TSA. The other problem in the UK is old people who have been brainwashed to believe that drugs/homosexuality are terrible. Its going to take a generational purge for the political needle ( no puns intended ) to move.
- adrusi 10y ago
  There is a reason why its in my interest to not have my neighbor stockpile chlorine in his basement. What does this have to do with drugs? Maybe some extremely fringe libertarians like the idea of no substances being regulated, but a purist attitude would have to extend even to things like weapons-grade plutonium. Nobody is proposing letting people have chemicals that have to be handled very carefully without following strict procedures. Drugs can't explode and kill everyone within half a mile, but even with drugs I don't think anyone is advocating for complete anarchy. The most radical serious approach is one where any adult is free to buy whatever drug they want, but not in some kind of "free for all". Particularly addictive drugs, like opiates and meth, might need to be sold by the state. Other drugs could be sold privately but only by professional vendors abiding by a set of regulations. Any solution that doesn't allow people to get the drugs they want doesn't address the argument that prohibition limits people's right to manipulate their consciousness, which is epistemologically one of the most important things someone can do. The problem of drug availability attracting more users can be solved in ways that don't keep them out of reach of people who have made a well reasoned decision to use them: cigarettes are highly available, but few Americans take up smoking today.
jshevek 10y ago
I agree with your criticism of the war on drugs, but I'm surprised at this hyperbole: > Sellers of drugs, will ALWAYS sell drugs, both illegal and legal. Are you saying that 3,000 years from now, neohumans will be using addictive chemicals that damage their body in order to modify their brain chemistry and induce related experiences? Can't we illustrate the uselessness of the war on drugs without resorting to statements so sweeping and absolute as to be absurd when taken literally?
- PeCaN 10y ago
  > Are you saying that 3,000 years from now, neohumans will be using addictive chemicals that damage their body in order to modify their brain chemistry and induce related experiences? s/chemicals/electric currents/g or s/chemicals/embedded microprocessors/g or whatever and then you're just debating what semantically constitutes a ‘drug’. So… yeah, I can get behind drugs being a thing 3000 years from now. They were a thing 3000 years ago and seem to have only gotten more prevalent.
  - jshevek 10y ago
    > you're just debating what semantically constitutes a ‘drug’ No, I wasn't at all. I simply introduced a bit of specificity into the language used, but the point I sought to clarify was related to your lack of allowance for the importance of culture and for the ability of culture to change. There is an extensive list of human behaviors whose prevalence has changed dramatically over the last 1,000 years as cultural values have changed. There is no reason to assume that its impossible to have similarly changing cultural views (species wide) of drug use. Its simply absurd to say that drug use will always be with us. It may, it may not. What do you know of our future culture? Especially if we start to more aggressively genetically engineer ourselves? The semantic argument you've raised trivializes important issues. There are substances and behaviors which alter mood which no serious person has suggested be made illegal (such as aromatherapy, or going for a jog). Surely you aren't assuming that future experience altering technology would necessarily be illegal, physically addictive, or damaging to the body?
placeybordeaux 10y ago
There are places in the world where most drugs are fairly unkown. Japan and Korea come to mind as places where largely only prescription drugs, cigarettes and alcohol are used, it seems like some club drugs are becoming more popular, but many drugs are so hard to come by it's easy to write them off. It is not as inevitable as you make it out to be, but in a country like the US it is basically impossible to get rid of drugs. So much of the population already has contact with it. There is so much space to produce them and the borders are so large it is near impossible to secure them.

Lawtonfogle 10y ago

Now apply this logic to other things traded on the darkweb.

15charlimit 10y ago
If you actually want to stop the trade of anything, you go shut down the source - not the distribution channel that lets you keep tabs on what's being traded where, between whom. See the somewhat recent media hysteria and stupidity around craigslist/similar sites and prostitution. The only thing accomplished was driving the distribution channels to other, less visible, less-easily-tracked places. Everything that was happening before is still happening now.

jswny 10y ago

I tend to feel the same way. These types of things are inevitable, you are never going to stop them from happening. However, when debating this point, I have a hard time defending my point when someone else says "so should we just not do anything? Wouldn't that increase the illegal activity? Should we let people buy guns too? Where do you draw the line?" I have to say, I'm not sure what to say about that. If the government did not actively fight this, successful or not, would it cause the markets and illegal drug users to proliferate?

stonemetal 10y ago
First off if it were legal how would there be an increase in illegal activity? There probably would be an increase in drug use if that is what you mean. The government could still fight it, but it would be a health and human services problem at that point. Which means a lot less high stakes do anything to not get caught crime going on. It could be paid for by taxes on the drugs. There would be fewer deaths from drug overdoses because quality and purity could be regulated. Drugs with little to no long term side effects would probably become popular. Drugs that have harsher side effects and highly addictive properties would probably still be stigmatized because of their effects. The line would get drawn the same place it does for gambling and alcohol. Occasional use by grownups is OK, if it becomes life impacting then rehab and abstinence is probably best for you.
- alsetmusic 10y ago
  > First off if it were legal how would there be an increase in illegal activity? There probably would be an increase in drug use if that is what you mean. I think the hypothetical here is that illegal activities could rise in search of money to feed drug addiction. This would come in the form of theft, robbery, etc. It's not as if no one ever stole money to buy food.
  - brokenmachine 10y ago
    I don't know about the premise that there would be more people stealing to feed addiction. Is there a significant problem with people stealing now to feed alcohol addiction?
    - alsetmusic 10y ago
      I'm only saying that a need creates a motive. When I was eighteen and addicted to cigarettes, I scrounged every inch of my apartment for coins to buy a pack. I imagine an addiction to harder drugs would create a greater need. I only pontificated on what I thought the parent might mean. I didn't state a fact.
10y ago

wrong_variable 10y ago

I think its a reflection of having govt dominated by lawyers. Economist and social scientists would see this as a failure of markets, and do some analysis to figure out a balanced approach to create some sort of Laffer curve. I think going the other direction and allowing a free for all situation with substances would be a problem too. There is a reason why its in my interest to not have my neighbor stockpile chlorine in his basement. The best example I can think of is the Israeli govt or the Chinese govt. Where the Israeli govt since they actually have a serious terrorism problem, do not have things like the TSA. The other problem in the UK is old people who have been brainwashed to believe that drugs/homosexuality are terrible. Its going to take a generational purge for the political needle ( no puns intended ) to move.

adrusi 10y ago
There is a reason why its in my interest to not have my neighbor stockpile chlorine in his basement. What does this have to do with drugs? Maybe some extremely fringe libertarians like the idea of no substances being regulated, but a purist attitude would have to extend even to things like weapons-grade plutonium. Nobody is proposing letting people have chemicals that have to be handled very carefully without following strict procedures. Drugs can't explode and kill everyone within half a mile, but even with drugs I don't think anyone is advocating for complete anarchy. The most radical serious approach is one where any adult is free to buy whatever drug they want, but not in some kind of "free for all". Particularly addictive drugs, like opiates and meth, might need to be sold by the state. Other drugs could be sold privately but only by professional vendors abiding by a set of regulations. Any solution that doesn't allow people to get the drugs they want doesn't address the argument that prohibition limits people's right to manipulate their consciousness, which is epistemologically one of the most important things someone can do. The problem of drug availability attracting more users can be solved in ways that don't keep them out of reach of people who have made a well reasoned decision to use them: cigarettes are highly available, but few Americans take up smoking today.

jshevek 10y ago

I agree with your criticism of the war on drugs, but I'm surprised at this hyperbole: > Sellers of drugs, will ALWAYS sell drugs, both illegal and legal. Are you saying that 3,000 years from now, neohumans will be using addictive chemicals that damage their body in order to modify their brain chemistry and induce related experiences? Can't we illustrate the uselessness of the war on drugs without resorting to statements so sweeping and absolute as to be absurd when taken literally?

PeCaN 10y ago
> Are you saying that 3,000 years from now, neohumans will be using addictive chemicals that damage their body in order to modify their brain chemistry and induce related experiences? s/chemicals/electric currents/g or s/chemicals/embedded microprocessors/g or whatever and then you're just debating what semantically constitutes a ‘drug’. So… yeah, I can get behind drugs being a thing 3000 years from now. They were a thing 3000 years ago and seem to have only gotten more prevalent.
- jshevek 10y ago
  > you're just debating what semantically constitutes a ‘drug’ No, I wasn't at all. I simply introduced a bit of specificity into the language used, but the point I sought to clarify was related to your lack of allowance for the importance of culture and for the ability of culture to change. There is an extensive list of human behaviors whose prevalence has changed dramatically over the last 1,000 years as cultural values have changed. There is no reason to assume that its impossible to have similarly changing cultural views (species wide) of drug use. Its simply absurd to say that drug use will always be with us. It may, it may not. What do you know of our future culture? Especially if we start to more aggressively genetically engineer ourselves? The semantic argument you've raised trivializes important issues. There are substances and behaviors which alter mood which no serious person has suggested be made illegal (such as aromatherapy, or going for a jog). Surely you aren't assuming that future experience altering technology would necessarily be illegal, physically addictive, or damaging to the body?

placeybordeaux 10y ago

There are places in the world where most drugs are fairly unkown. Japan and Korea come to mind as places where largely only prescription drugs, cigarettes and alcohol are used, it seems like some club drugs are becoming more popular, but many drugs are so hard to come by it's easy to write them off. It is not as inevitable as you make it out to be, but in a country like the US it is basically impossible to get rid of drugs. So much of the population already has contact with it. There is so much space to produce them and the borders are so large it is near impossible to secure them.