Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

After Over a Year of Police Action, Dark Net Black Markets Still Growing

Posted by Soulskill on from the waiting-for-the-war-on-drugs-to-go-digital dept.

When the original Silk Road was shut down in 2013, it provided definitive evidence that federal law enforcement was targeting online black markets. Later, after the fall of Silk Road 2.0 and the Evolution Market's admins running off with their customers' money, you might have expected people to become more wary of dark net markets — but that doesn't seem to be the case. The number of products being bought and sold is up significantly since last year, and it's quadrupled since the original Silk Road fell. "The most enduring institution on the Dark Net is Agora. Founded in December 2014, amid the rubble of Silk Road's fall, Agora now accounts for 37 percent of all Dark Net product listings. It's a drug-heavy market with substantial supplies in marijuana, ecstasy, prescription drugs, and stimulants—and nearly any other drug you can imagine."

7 of 87 comments (clear)

  1. I'm shocked, shocked, I tell you... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Funny

    Haven't 'drugs' been winning the war on drugs by almost unbelievable margins more or less continually since it was declared?

    Why, if they were as dangerous as my kindly DARE officer claimed, we'd probably be living under the iron heel of a drugs occupation force right now.

    1. Re:I'm shocked, shocked, I tell you... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The actual winners:

      • police--budget and personnel increases.
      • lawyers--the lawyers always win.
      • police equipment manufacturers--where the increased budgets are spent.
      • private prison owners--constant supply of inmate and inmates are profit.
      • manufacturers --constant supply of slave labor, better known as inmates.
      • small business--they don't have to pay ex-cons as much.
      • drug testing companies--big brother.
      • politicians--winning elections because they win elections by being tougher on crime, (drugs), that the other guy.
    2. Re:I'm shocked, shocked, I tell you... by Greyfox · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Depends on what you consider "Winning". Sure, something like 85% of US citizens have tried marijuana and it's now not uncommon for presidents to admit to marijuana and cocaine use in their past (But they'd never do it NOW, oh no!) But it's a huge windfall for privatized, for-profit prison systems and an excellent tool for oppressing minorities in ever-greater numbers. It's also been wonderful for anyone with an agenda of eroding the bill of rights and militarizing police forces. I'd go so far as to speculate that the difference between being president and not being president, for the last three presidents, was that they didn't get caught. Naturally that depends on exactly how much of what they had on them at any given time, but all 3 seem like the kind of people who'd have a pretty decent stockpile of stuff they like. And if you're a black dude, misdemeanor possession can easily be turned into multiple felonies.

      So yeah, sucks for the average citizen, awesome for the people who actually make the laws.

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  2. Whack-a-mole by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Black markets pop up when free markets aren't available. Legalizing drugs would do wonders for the economy. Not only do we spend a heap of money on the war on drugs: militarized police, overburdened legal system and oversaturated prisons, but then there's also the costs in terms of innocent bystanders who are injured or killed in this war. Over 70,000 people have been killed by drug cartels in Mexico alone. How do a lot of terrorists fund their activities? By selling heroin. If they were available for over-the-counter purchase at a reasonable price, like alcohol & tobacco are, it would make a whole world of problems disappear. That's not to say that there wouldn't be new problems in terms of addiction, but these problems would be minor in comparison to the ones we have now.

    --
    Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    1. Re:Whack-a-mole by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 4, Interesting

      While complete legalization has its downsides, the current drug prohibition and resulting paramilitary law enforcement response, not to mention everything else associated with the "War on Drugs" is far, far worse on so many levels. I'd go so far as to say the only way you could even remotely consider the War on Drugs as successful would be if your goal was to criminalize large swathes of the population, while putting them under a militarized, invasive police state where things like privacy and other rights are on the road to becoming a distant memory.

      Yes, there would be problems with addiction, just like there are now with alcohol and tobacco. It would also be far, far less costly to deal with those than with the negative affects of drug prohibition.

  3. Re:Bigger != Better by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The way to "get around" the law is to change the law.

    You cannot change the law without public support. One way to get public support for repeal is to show that a law is dysfunctional. If drug prohibition laws actually worked, did what they were designed to do, and had fewer bad side effects, then support for repeal would be much weaker. We are better off if people buy their drugs online, then if they get them on street corners. The only people harmed by these online markets are the drug dealers, the police, and the incarceration industry.

  4. Re:Bigger != Better by moeinvt · · Score: 4, Insightful

    IIRC, they got Al Capone for tax evasion.

    The best way way to make "crime" go away is to repeal stupid laws. No victim, no crime.