5 ms·

I was just going to quote the same paragraph - the Silk Road was a distribution center of drugs and mayhem. It's an oxymoron to say that people want to do busin

I was just going to quote the same paragraph - the Silk Road was a distribution center of drugs and mayhem. It's an oxymoron to say that people want to do business anonymously. The majority of legal businesses want to be well known and well thought of but with those rare few exceptions who do operate anonymously they have corporate identities for that.

betterunix 13y ago
"the Silk Road was a distribution center of drugs" You say this as though there is something immoral about selling drugs. There has never been a strong moral argument for drug prohibition, and in fact many "illegal" drugs (many that were sold on SR) are legal by prescription (cocaine, methamphetamine, opiates, etc.). Drug prohibition is and has always been a combination of racism and corporate profits.
- powertower 13y ago
  > You say this as though there is something immoral about selling drugs. Absolutely immoral. Drugs like cocaine, meth, heroin, etc, make you into an addict once you start taking them on a regular bases - and that happens quite easily. The dealers know this full well, but will do it anyways to make a profit. A very small one at that, since most of these guys don't even make more than they could working at McDonalds. > and in fact many "illegal" drugs (many that were sold on SR) are legal by prescription (cocaine, methamphetamine, opiates, etc.) So a prescribed 5mg Desoxyn (dextro-methamphetamine) pill swallowed once per day for Narcolepsy is no different than the typical 100mg of crystal Meth put and smoked in a pipe to get wired for 24h? Or a couple of Vicodin or Percs for pain in you back is no different than shooting black tar heroin? > Drug prohibition is and has always been a combination of racism and corporate profits. The difference in effects between powder-cocaine insufflated and crack-cocaine smoked is so great that it literally feels like a different drug. The difference between frequency and types of crimes committed by powder-cocaine users and crack-cocaine users was also so great that laws were enacted to treat the drug differently. One of many counter-points to the "it must always be a race thing" argument.
  - mdpye 13y ago
    The difference between frequency and types of crimes committed by powder-cocaine users and crack-cocaine users was also so great that laws were enacted to treat the drug differently. This is racism, pure and simple. It may not be intentional, but that doesn't change it. The frequency and types of crimes committed by powder and crack users are a function of their socio-economic backgrounds, not their drugs of choice, which are a co-incidental cultural preference which was convenient in the repression of lower social classes. The same thing happens now with white meth users. Yes, they are different drugs. No, one is not considerably more addictive or dangerous than the other. Plenty to read on the subject in the references here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Sentencing_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Sentencing_Act
    - powertower 13y ago
      So how do you explain epidemics in the early years of cocaine users switching to crack (for a cheaper and more potent high) and everything around them becoming 10x worse as a result?
      - jlgreco 13y ago
        > "and everything around them becoming 10x worse as a result?" (Note my emphasis) You are begging the question here. Consider the alternative hypothesis, that things went to shit and they switched to a cheaper form of cocaine. 'And', not 'because'. In fact, one can hypothesis that both changes were triggered by another factor that you have failed to mention.
  - eruditely 13y ago
    The problem is addiction rates for many drugs are exaggerated and the amount of people that live functional lives(functionally equivalent to normal people) is understated. People like you get a free pass with saying things like this but you have no real world experience. I speak of cocaine specifically of that you mentioned and not crack-cocaine as I have no experience with that.
    - 13y ago
swamp40 13y ago
Yes, that paragraph jumped right out at me as well. Those are some radical statements. The rule of law is the foundation of civilization. People most certainly do have the right to enact laws which protect themselves and their families from chaos and anarchy.
- acron0 13y ago
  The rule of US law, in this case and in every case regarding the Internet, apparently.

betterunix 13y ago

"the Silk Road was a distribution center of drugs" You say this as though there is something immoral about selling drugs. There has never been a strong moral argument for drug prohibition, and in fact many "illegal" drugs (many that were sold on SR) are legal by prescription (cocaine, methamphetamine, opiates, etc.). Drug prohibition is and has always been a combination of racism and corporate profits.

powertower 13y ago
> You say this as though there is something immoral about selling drugs. Absolutely immoral. Drugs like cocaine, meth, heroin, etc, make you into an addict once you start taking them on a regular bases - and that happens quite easily. The dealers know this full well, but will do it anyways to make a profit. A very small one at that, since most of these guys don't even make more than they could working at McDonalds. > and in fact many "illegal" drugs (many that were sold on SR) are legal by prescription (cocaine, methamphetamine, opiates, etc.) So a prescribed 5mg Desoxyn (dextro-methamphetamine) pill swallowed once per day for Narcolepsy is no different than the typical 100mg of crystal Meth put and smoked in a pipe to get wired for 24h? Or a couple of Vicodin or Percs for pain in you back is no different than shooting black tar heroin? > Drug prohibition is and has always been a combination of racism and corporate profits. The difference in effects between powder-cocaine insufflated and crack-cocaine smoked is so great that it literally feels like a different drug. The difference between frequency and types of crimes committed by powder-cocaine users and crack-cocaine users was also so great that laws were enacted to treat the drug differently. One of many counter-points to the "it must always be a race thing" argument.
- mdpye 13y ago
  The difference between frequency and types of crimes committed by powder-cocaine users and crack-cocaine users was also so great that laws were enacted to treat the drug differently. This is racism, pure and simple. It may not be intentional, but that doesn't change it. The frequency and types of crimes committed by powder and crack users are a function of their socio-economic backgrounds, not their drugs of choice, which are a co-incidental cultural preference which was convenient in the repression of lower social classes. The same thing happens now with white meth users. Yes, they are different drugs. No, one is not considerably more addictive or dangerous than the other. Plenty to read on the subject in the references here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Sentencing_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Sentencing_Act
  - powertower 13y ago
    So how do you explain epidemics in the early years of cocaine users switching to crack (for a cheaper and more potent high) and everything around them becoming 10x worse as a result?
    - jlgreco 13y ago
      > "and everything around them becoming 10x worse as a result?" (Note my emphasis) You are begging the question here. Consider the alternative hypothesis, that things went to shit and they switched to a cheaper form of cocaine. 'And', not 'because'. In fact, one can hypothesis that both changes were triggered by another factor that you have failed to mention.
- eruditely 13y ago
  The problem is addiction rates for many drugs are exaggerated and the amount of people that live functional lives(functionally equivalent to normal people) is understated. People like you get a free pass with saying things like this but you have no real world experience. I speak of cocaine specifically of that you mentioned and not crack-cocaine as I have no experience with that.
  - 13y ago

swamp40 13y ago

Yes, that paragraph jumped right out at me as well. Those are some radical statements. The rule of law is the foundation of civilization. People most certainly do have the right to enact laws which protect themselves and their families from chaos and anarchy.

acron0 13y ago
The rule of US law, in this case and in every case regarding the Internet, apparently.