8 ms·

> 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 red

> 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.

mikeyouse 12y ago
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.
- andreasklinger 12y ago
  As in every market the real value is in distribution I would assume Drug production is a commodity market (also within US borders)
- deciplex 12y ago
  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.
- kissickas 12y ago
  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.
  - cmdkeen 12y ago
    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.
    - kissickas 12y ago
      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. [0] https://www.quora.com/How-much-of-the-heroin-imported-into-the-United-States-enters-the-country-through-Baltimore https://www.quora.com/How-much-of-the-heroin-imported-into-t...
      - jamespo 12y ago
        How on earth is that reversion going to happen? The cartels will just pack their bags and let an non-profit organic collective take over the farms?
      - roel_v 12y ago
        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'.
coffeemug 12y ago
> 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.
- mathetic 12y ago
  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.
  - coffeemug 12y ago
    > 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.
Meekro 12y ago
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.

mikeyouse 12y ago

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.

andreasklinger 12y ago
As in every market the real value is in distribution I would assume Drug production is a commodity market (also within US borders)
deciplex 12y ago
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.
kissickas 12y ago
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.
- cmdkeen 12y ago
  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.
  - kissickas 12y ago
    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. [0] https://www.quora.com/How-much-of-the-heroin-imported-into-the-United-States-enters-the-country-through-Baltimore https://www.quora.com/How-much-of-the-heroin-imported-into-t...
    - jamespo 12y ago
      How on earth is that reversion going to happen? The cartels will just pack their bags and let an non-profit organic collective take over the farms?
    - roel_v 12y ago
      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'.

coffeemug 12y ago

> 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.

mathetic 12y ago
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.
- coffeemug 12y ago
  > 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.

Meekro 12y ago

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.