Slashdot Mirror
The Economics of Drug Sales On the Dark Web
HughPickens.com writes: Allison Schrager has an interesting article about how marketplaces for contraband drugs have only existed for about four years on the dark web, but they've made inroads fast. About 10%-15% of drug users in the U.K., U.S., and Australia [are believed to have] bought drugs off the net. According to Schrager, these marketplaces look remarkably similar to normal online marketplaces. Users leave detailed reviews on the quality of a vendor's product, speed of delivery, and how secure the shipping method was. There's information on where vendors are located and where they'll ship to. Some even post their refund and exchange policies. Purchasing meth from a dealer in the Netherlands feels as familiar and mundane as buying sheets from Macy's. The dark web makes transactions safer.
All the same, there are risks that Macy's customers don't run. Because there's no legal protection for illegal purchases, the bitcoin payments sit in escrow until the goods have been delivered and both parties are satisfied. That exposes the seller to exchange-rate risk, because bitcoin is an extremely volatile currency. And there is one other big source of risk: the point where the virtual world of the dark web and the world of physical reality intersect. In other words, getting drugs delivered. Certain drugs like MDMA and LSD may move mostly online. And the web may become the preferred source for affluent users and small-time pot dealers.
All the same, there are risks that Macy's customers don't run. Because there's no legal protection for illegal purchases, the bitcoin payments sit in escrow until the goods have been delivered and both parties are satisfied. That exposes the seller to exchange-rate risk, because bitcoin is an extremely volatile currency. And there is one other big source of risk: the point where the virtual world of the dark web and the world of physical reality intersect. In other words, getting drugs delivered. Certain drugs like MDMA and LSD may move mostly online. And the web may become the preferred source for affluent users and small-time pot dealers.
This is a matter of privacy, not criminality.
The world is a safer place when the government thugs are prevented from meddling in people's lives; the only reason the government is upset is that they're not getting "their" cut of the profits, and they're losing the massive political leverage they've built up for the drug war.
And, please, don't bother with straw man arguments about Ulbricht hiring murderers, or people buying stolen credit card information. People already did those things.
Incidentally, the fact that Bitcoin has enabled people conduct highly "illegal" commerce is as sure a sign as any that Bitcoin is both an interesting technology and a potentially lucrative investment, especially given that it has not jurisdiction—if the U.S. makes it troublesome to use Bitcoin, well, there's still the rest of the world out there.
You don't really want crack to become legal do you?
It's not that expensive to produce, so if it were legal, there would be much less incentive to commit crimes since it would be much less expensive. The same argument applies to basically all drugs. The only reason people traffic them in spite of the often significant risk is because making them illegal has driven up the prices and the rewards are also significant.
If you give addicts enough drugs to OD on, then eventually they will either do that or find a level of addiction which they can manage, or even improve their lives and eventually kick the habit. Regardless, for the really dangerous drugs, drug addiction tends to be a self-limiting problem if you're not busy exacerbating it. When we make them illegal we simply create vicious cycles which lead to more drug use and more crime. How does that help? The best way to reduce drug use is to treat addicts like they have a health problem, not to treat them like criminals. That helps prevent them from becoming criminals in the first place.
How we treat criminals is also unfortunate, but probably outside the scope of this conversation — suffice to say, it's doing nothing to help us "win the war on drugs".
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
How about we just lock up thieves?
I know it sounds a bit crazy, but not all thieves are drugs users and not all drug users are thieves. Seems like we should concentrate on the actual crime and not your preconceptions and prejudices.
I mean, we could lock up niggers too if they're gonna be black, because we know they all eventually steal from good white folks... makes about as much sense as your argument.
A friend of mine used to use a lot of substances. After a decades or two he realized that he was planning his days around his substance use. One day enough was enough, and he stopped, very rapidly. He described his cocaine days thusly: "Man, I wish I had some cocaine..." It's nice to feel cocaine-good, but you can get by without it.
Tweakers (meth users) go lurping (steal stuff) to support their habits. A different friend switched from cocaine to meth because it was cheaper. After a while, she realized that she didn't like her personality on Meth, so she stopped. The anxiety started soon thereafter. Her doctor put her on Xanax, then she discovered Vodka. Her third DUI put her in prison for almost 2 years. In many ways, alcohol is worse than meth.
This woman's son got hooked on opiates while she was anesthetizing herself with alcohol. He started stealing stuff to avoid the withdrawals.
The primary drugs that lead to stealing to support one's habits are meth amphetamine (not a plant) and the opiates. Society would be much better off if we switched meth users to cocaine, and supplied free opiates to our opiate addicts, so they wouldn't have to steal to support their consumption of artificially-expensive plant products.
I'm told that pure MDMA is actually fairly safe as illegal drugs go; the problem is with the variability in manufacturing along with mixtures and substitutions means that people using it don't really know what they're taking. Pure cocaine isn't good, but it's going to be a hell of lot healthier than crack cocaine cut with candle wax or something worse.
When you start looking at it statistically, most of the damage "done by" illegal drugs is either going to be because of these kinds of factors as well as the fringe lifestyle that comes with being a drug user more than the actual drugs themselves.
That's not to say that the drugs themselves are good, but a huge amount of harm would be prevented by making cheap, pure, and known-quantity supplies available to users along with a good supply of drug and mental health treatments.
Won't happen soon, of course, but I expect to see it in my lifetime.
Log in or piss off.
Personally, I find the trade of prescription drugs on the dark web more interesting. People buying inhalers over the dark web for $30 because they can't afford the $300 demanded at the pharmacy for the same thing.
no, they can't take the lists and lock everybody up
best they could do is try and use the list for probably cause to get a search warrant, which would be a stretch
everyone forgets that Prohibition of Alcohol didn't end because the Feds decided it was a good idea
Prohibition of Alcohol ended because enough States said "Fuck you, its legal here, if you want to enforce Fed law, do it yourself"
The Feds don't have the resources to do that, alcohol's status changes at the Fed level.
That is what will happen with marijuana in the U.S.