4 ms·
Sure, that'll be the reaction in some quarters, and in breezy superficial mainstream reports. But that's always the reaction in those places: no change here. B
by gojomo 13y ago
Sure, that'll be the reaction in some quarters, and in breezy superficial mainstream reports. But that's always the reaction in those places: no change here.
But there will also be curiosity that leads people to other more sophisticated takes on Silk Road and DPR's philosophy. Here's an interesting one:
http://www.siliconvalleywatcher.com/mt/archives/2013/10/silk_road_shutdown_be.php http://www.siliconvalleywatcher.com/mt/archives/2013/10/silk...
Silk Road was safer and cheaper than the very-violent legacy prohibited-drugs businesses. (Other smuggling cartels with $1.2B in sales likely have a lot more blood on their hands than two fake assassinations.) So here's another potential takeaway worthy of discussion:
• maybe psychoactive drugs ought to be a mail-order business, as a harm-reduction policy. USPS/Fedex/UPS can check proof-of-age on delivery, and people in addiction-recovery could be put (by election or court-order) on no-delivery lists
• if an online drug vendor is being blackmailed by a hacker/disgruntled-employee threatening the release of customer information, that vendor should be able to go to the cops and have the blackmailer arrested under the CFAA. Same for an embezzling employee. No extralegal "street justice" required.
• the taxes on such commerce could be spent to help addicts far more than today, and have some left over for spending on other social benefits
- genwin 13y agoWhat if the more easily procured drugs create more addicts, reducing tax revenue so that the net tax benefit is negative? Then you've got less money to help more addicts.
- betterunix 13y agoCould happen, but it is not just the tax revenue. You also greatly reduce the tax burden of keeping so many people in prison, both for drug possession or selling and for related problems like the crimes surrounding the drug trade. You greatly reduce the money spent arresting those people. You have a businesses that benefit from a legal drug market, strengthening the larger economy. https://www.csub.edu/kej/documents/economic_rsch/2012-03-26.pdf https://www.csub.edu/kej/documents/economic_rsch/2012-03-26....
- genwin 13y agoYou could make the same point about murderers, though. If we ignore them we save tax money spent today on investigations, trials, and imprisonment. The solution should do more good than harm. In the case of victimless crimes like for most marijuana usage the solution is clear. But highly addictive drugs lead to victims other than the user, including the general taxpayers who helped fund their upbringing.
- gojomo 13y agoPossible, the only way to find out is to tinker. Other experiments in decriminalization-plus-harm-reduction have usually shown net benefits. See for example Portugal: http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/evaluating-drug-decriminalization-in-portugal-12-years-later-a-891060.html http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/evaluating-drug-d... Usage goes up a bit, but more addicts enter treatment, drug-related disease and crime drops, and most people, even most drug users, know to avoid the nastiest addictions.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]