5 ms·
Silk Road was criminal because the drug warriors decided that it was. I don't think the only alternative to the punitive system of fines & jails should be a bur
by noarchy 13y ago
Silk Road was criminal because the drug warriors decided that it was. I don't think the only alternative to the punitive system of fines & jails should be a bureaucracy of regulation. The latter is the likely outcome, of course, since legislators have a tough time making changes that don't keep them firmly in charge (or...pretending to be, in the case of the drug war).
- Nursie 13y agoThat's not really the argument I was making but it is one I will make. Where drugs are concerned, hell yes we want regulation and bureaucracy. I want to buy from a store (maybe even a pharmacist) who sells products from a well known, traceable and accountable chemical/pharmaceutical company. I want guarantees from the manufacturer that any contaminants are known, non-toxic and biologically inert. I want someone to sue if it's not the case. I don't buy alcohol from some forum member with half a dozen good reviews, who claims there's no methanol in his moonshine. I buy it from a store that's well run and well regulated. Edit: tl;dr - SR, to me, is not even close to a good model for legalised drug sales.
- marknutter 13y agoAll of those guarantees and checks can be facilitated by a private third party, and probably more efficiently.
- Nursie 13y agoYay! Libertarian talking points! I don't want to get into this, suffice to say I disagree.
- etherael 13y agoI don't want to get into this either, suffice to say you're wrong.
- Nursie 13y agoNo, I do actually disagree.
- etherael 13y agoOf course, which is why you are wrong. It is not a matter of opinion or a political talking point, it is a statement of fact; all of those guarantees and checks can be facilitated by a private third party. The "probably better" part is at least up for debate but the simple truth of the statement that private third parties provide facilities as described is simply factual.
- Nursie 13y agoI don't believe that guarantees can be provided in the same way by private third parties, sorry. Not with the same strength as can be provided by statute, not with the same consequences for those that deliberately transgress. Better/more efficient is also up for argument, but the main statement is not simply true. Sorry. Edit- by "not simply true" I mean up for debate and open to argument, not "false"
- marknutter 13y agoI can see your point about the teeth government regulation has over 3rd party regulation, but you do have to concede that for many benign products and services (that don't involve danger to life and limb) 3rd party rating services work quite well. The debate should be about whether or not the consumer has any teeth when it comes to rejecting unsafe or inferior products and services, and if those teeth are as sharp as the Government's.
- Nursie 13y agoI agree, many things can be done this way. I think that with drugs the dangers from contamination and fraud are serious enough to have some proper regulation. Slip-ups or profit-motivated cuts and substitutions cost lives, many lives. Of course some of this would be mitigated by removing the unnecessary anonymity factor from a legal silk road. I also like the idea of going to a shop and buying recognised brands of chemicals from well known companies. Total normalisation of the drug trade rather than sketchy, rep base forums. "Hullo pharmacist, I'd like a quarter gram of DiPT crystal please" "Certainly sir. Now you're not going to be mixing that with MDMA or other serotonergica are you? Nasty interactions I'm afraid. That'll be £12"
- noarchy 13y agoI actually don't think that SR is a good model for legal drug sales, either. SR is/was designed around the fact that these transactions are illegal. In a situation where drugs are legal, whatever the level of regulation, you'd have very different kinds of websites. For example, anonymity might still be a selling point, but for social reasons, rather than legal ones.