Slashdot Mirror


Online Drug Sales Triple After Silk Road Closure, Says Report (nbcnews.com)

The closure of Silk Road -- a marketplace where internet users could purchase drugs and other illegal goods -- in 2013 has had little to no effect on drug sales. According to a new report from RAND, online drug sales have tripled since the site was shut down. NBC News reports: "Since then, an estimated 50 'cryptomarkets and vendor shops where vendors and buyers find each other anonymously to trade illegal drugs, new psychoactive substances, prescription drugs and other goods and services,' have emerged to fill the void, according to the report. The research, which was commissioned by the Netherlands Ministry of Security and Justice, examined data from January and found dealers in the United States had the largest market share with 35.9 percent, followed by the United Kingdom at 16.1 percent and Australia at 10.6 percent. Marijuana was the top seller in January, accounting for 33 percent of illicit drug sales online, followed by prescription medication at 19 percent and stimulants at 18 percent."

95 comments

  1. Markets Work, Bitches by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    People on various sides of various issues try not to believe it, would like not to believe it, but Markets Work. You can't stop them just by making rules against them, not without insanely powerful enforcement mechanisms..., and usually not even then.

    1. Re:Markets Work, Bitches by geekmux · · Score: 1, Insightful

      People on various sides of various issues try not to believe it, would like not to believe it, but Markets Work. You can't stop them just by making rules against them, not without insanely powerful enforcement mechanisms..., and usually not even then.

      Well, that's certainly one creative way to describe the demand driven by physical and psychological addiction.

    2. Re:Markets Work, Bitches by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 3, Insightful

      the rich are terribly addicted to power and control of fellow man.

      I'd like to see a war on rich sociopaths. humanity would move up several degrees if we redistributed the weath these assholes are hoarding.

      the middle and lower classes don't have life as good and so they endulge in things that numb the pain of life.

      don't blame them. blame the ones who perpetually insist on having a lower class, and pushing us all down there, more and more over time.

      there are many wars in classist societies. the war on 'drugs' is a false one and is a distraction to keep us from thinking of how much the 'haves' have. equalize things and stop insisting that people who like things you don't like should be put in prison.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    3. Re:Markets Work, Bitches by swillden · · Score: 1

      People on various sides of various issues try not to believe it, would like not to believe it, but Markets Work. You can't stop them just by making rules against them, not without insanely powerful enforcement mechanisms..., and usually not even then.

      Well, that's certainly one creative way to describe the demand driven by physical and psychological addiction.

      Well, markets don't care what drives the demand. I think that's kind of the OP's point.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    4. Re:Markets Work, Bitches by PRMan · · Score: 2

      France already tried this. It didn't work out too well.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    5. Re: Markets Work, Bitches by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Depends what the problems are with the addiction. Tabacco is addictive but legal and it causes all kinds of health issues over time. Addiction alone isn't the reason drugs are illegal. Alcohol's acceptance in western society is probably the greatest of hypocrisies I can think of as proof.

      Alcohol is a substantial factor in crime, mostly violent crime. There is also the risk of traffic crashes associated with its consumption.

      One of the main reasons to have some substances illegal is probably religion. The altered states of mind pose a direct challenge to the accepted reality that religion prescribes to its followers and are probably the most likely thing to cause cultlike challengers to mainstream religion, not including insanity.

      It's also that the corrupt old people in control of the world don't like the fact that drugs make it harder to control the population. (Well you could probably get some junkies to do anything for a fix). Cannabis users in particular question societies control structures and lean towards the far left in general.

      The consequences of an addiction with the state are probably worse than the addiction itself is for you and society. Of course some drugs are much worse than others.

      I think the worst part of the drugs, even the non addictive substances is probably the mental health issues they can cause. But health issue is what is important about that statement. Psychosis is a real risk of drug use. Methamphetamine and Cannabis in particular.

      The cost of these substances is articifically inflated by their illegality making the problems associated with their use increase. One reason to demand addictive substances be illegal is the crime used to fund the addictions. It's all kind of catch 22. The drugs that are plant based could be grown by the user themselves potentially removing many problems but certainly increasing supply and further causing the price to drop.

      Either way, the war on drugs is a great way to get the poor and minorities institutionalised as it currently stands. Most of Hollywood would be incarcerated of the goal was to actually go after users. It's more about who is using and who police come into contact with while using.

      A fair and just society would create voluntarily segregated areas that allowed for drug use much like a bar does for alcohol. A safe place to consume and a place for junkies to remain to keep society safe from them. We already put them in jail but donwe really need to remove soany rights from them and focus on punishment? I don't think so.

      And all this in societies that allow people to legally obtain firearms. I can understand in rural areas where there are dangerous animals. But anyone holding a gun for "self defence" basically is saying they want to shoot someone. Most gun nut lunatics I've met really seem like deep down inside they just want to legally be able to kill someone, just like soany young guys who join the military. The right to bear arms is also great in theory to dissolve the government but it's great in theory much the same way that communism works on paper. People are the problem.

      I can't wait for a benevolent AI to rule (support the existence of civilised society) us.

    6. Re:Markets Work, Bitches by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You assume that everyone buying from these sites is addicted.

      That is not the case. Many people just want a something to relax on the weekend that they cannot legally obtain because of prohibition.

    7. Re:Markets Work, Bitches by gweihir · · Score: 1

      I second that.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    8. Re:Markets Work, Bitches by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Redistributing wealth doesn't create resources.

      If we all got $1M USD tomorrow, the inflation would be... unprecedented.

    9. Re:Markets Work, Bitches by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pfft, extrajudicial killings will end your precious markets. Just ask Duterte.

      Eliminate humanity and you eliminate commerce.

      captcha: murder

    10. Re:Markets Work, Bitches by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A war against the rich is easily as evil and misguided as a war against drugs. If you must try to fix the world by attacking certain people, focus on those that are actually responsible for so many problems: the political elite.

    11. Re:Markets Work, Bitches by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you saying that the money being hoarded by wealthy people is more productive than if everyone was to have a million dollars?

    12. Re:Markets Work, Bitches by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The politically elite are the one who are wealthy because they take money from the rich people who you said we should not wage war against because it's evil. That's just shifting the focus away from the greatest part of the problem onto a false one.

    13. Re: Markets Work, Bitches by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If everyone were given a million dollars, within a few short years, the wealth would be unevenly distributed again. Most lottery winners blow their wealth and are back to where they started in record time. What do we do? Redistribute wealth on some monthly basis?

    14. Re:Markets Work, Bitches by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      Only due to market reasons. The void was quickly filled by new assholes.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    15. Re:Markets Work, Bitches by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bring it on then. I dare you. I double-dare you. Go, and do your revolution: you'll be a red smear on a wall before you can even get anywhere near the Ruling Elite. Dead. Bugsplat. In case you have not noticed you have-nots may have the number, but the One Percenters have the means to reduce that number to zero. You bring a crowd of dozens? Batons and tear gas. You bring a crowd of hundreds? Bullets. Thousands? Napalm. You're not needed anymore as workforce because your jobs can be outsourced or automated. You're not even needed as buyers or customers because frankly you don't have the money anymore and there are plenty of spares and in any case the trend is toward gathering wealth, not providing services anymore. So go ahead and rebel, just don't cry too much when you're crushed under the heel.

    16. Re: Markets Work, Bitches by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      Something like this has been tried, with some rather amazing results. Basically what Wörgl (a community in Austria) did during the depression was to pay its workers in scrip, which lost a percent of its value per month. In other words, you WANTED to spend that money, because of a very obvious inflation of 1% a month. People were quite eager to keep the money in circulation.

      Of course the national bank could not have such heresy and put a lid onto this after just over a year.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    17. Re:Markets Work, Bitches by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      In case you don't know it yet, the political "elite" is nothing but the muppet of the rich. Why punch the Punch if you can punch his player?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    18. Re:Markets Work, Bitches by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Fascinating. Forced to sleep on the couch and now spreading hate?

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    19. Re: Markets Work, Bitches by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Attacking the rich wont do us any good except put us back a few hundred years in development. If there werent people with good money management skills none of us would have a job.

      If you think the world was a better place before work became common, youre severely mistaken.
      Current quality of life has really distorted the common mans view of life.
      Enjoy eating the same food every day, wearing the same torn clothes, not being able to aquire 20/20 vision and people generally dying around you regularly.

      Expecting the hierarchy of nature to change just shows how distored our views are.

    20. Re: Markets Work, Bitches by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I don't question the accumulation of wealth any more than I question copyright. They both have their right to exist, but they should exist in moderation, and in both cases we have left the area of sanity a while ago. Both are now giving a small group undeserved benefits while the majority suffers from it.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    21. Re:Markets Work, Bitches by The-Ixian · · Score: 1

      You don't have to be addicted to drugs to want to buy drugs...

      Drugs can be a very inexpensive vacation for a couple of days.

      The problem is when it starts to interfere with other's lives.

      But even then, I am not sure I would call it a bad thing necessarily.

      People are addicted to all kinds of things and no matter what it is (exercising, world of warcraft, kids, etc) it will incur a cost on others. It is just that we are conditioned to accept the cost for some "addictions" and not others.

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
    22. Re:Markets Work, Bitches by hackwrench · · Score: 1

      I have been saying for quite some time now that we all, the people of the world, need to take a step back and talk about what form of government we think we should have. To that end, I have created a Facebook group, The Pirate-Ninja-Zombie Party.

    23. Re:Markets Work, Bitches by hackwrench · · Score: 1

      *cough*Gandhi*cough*
      You know, I should really get that cough looked at. But anyways, if you end up doing zany things that put sand in the system and not violent things there is more potential for change. Imagine if there was a flashmob that said a word, phrase or sentence like say "public domain" or "Hobbes' philosophy". That's one example.

    24. Re:Markets Work, Bitches by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you have a problem with rich sociopaths in power, AND with hoarding? How are you going to stop hoarding without centralized power that invites sociopaths?

      This solution to drug prohibition uses Bitcoin, which is even more hoarding-friendly than gold. Satoshi's picked as his fake "birthday" the anniversary of when socialist FDR stole everyone's gold due to "hoarding" and consequently gave even more power to the central bankers.

      It's great that you want a better wealth distribution, so do I, but forced redistribution just concentrates power in the hands of the people doing the redistributing and makes it even worse in the long run. Just ask Stalin if votes matter. The best we can hope for is to eliminate the not-so-clever feedback mechanisms created in the 20th century so that wealth inequality can return to historical levels.

    25. Re:Markets Work, Bitches by Sperbels · · Score: 1

      Redistributing wealth doesn't create resources.

      No, but it takes power away from the cunts who abuse it.

    26. Re:Markets Work, Bitches by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      Redistributing wealth doesn't create resources.

      No, but it takes power away from the cunts who abuse it.

      And lets new cunts abuse it in new, unpredictable, ways. Part of the beauty of "the establishment" is that they have established predicted patterns of behavior - it's not the best imaginable scenario, but it's certainly easy to imagine worse ones.

    27. Re:Markets Work, Bitches by secret_squirrel_99 · · Score: 1

      People on various sides of various issues try not to believe it, would like not to believe it, but Markets Work. You can't stop them just by making rules against them, not without insanely powerful enforcement mechanisms..., and usually not even then.

      Well, that's certainly one creative way to describe the demand driven by physical and psychological addiction.

      Except that this has nothing to do with the argument. Markets work because people demand goods, period. Their motivation for the desire is completely irrelevant. It is a fundamental principle of economics that we always want as much of a good as we can consume. Why we want it doesn't matter. You might argue that these types of drugs, driven by addiction are not actually a good, but are in fact a bad. The behavior of these markets would demonstrate otherwise.

      --
      If privacy had a tombstone it would read "We did it for your own good" . -- John Twelve Hawks
    28. Re:Markets Work, Bitches by Sperbels · · Score: 1

      So, your reasoning is--don't try to fix things, better the devil you know?

    29. Re:Markets Work, Bitches by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      So, your reasoning is--don't try to fix things, better the devil you know?

      No, do try to fix things, but often better the devil you know than simple unknown chaos.

      I'd be in favor of basic income, sufficient per-capita to afford rent and food in the boonies, and abolish all the special crawl up your business requirements of disability and need based government assistance. Every citizen starts with a monthly check they can use for whatever needs, vices, etc. they choose. Money earned on top of that is tax free to a point somewhere above poverty, whatever that is, and then taxed at a flat percentage of anything beyond that, with various tax reduction incentives available to keep the lawmakers busy trading pork.

      Where it really needs to change is the structure that allows corporations to shelter billions offshore legally tax free, and the various tax reduction incentives should not balloon up to a point where Warren Buffet pays a lower percentage of his income in taxes than his secretary does. So, we just need the lawmakers to shift the tax burden off of the majority of their electorate and put it on the rich and powerful. Easy peasy, should have that knocked out by June of 2017, what else can the incoming group of lawmakers do for us after that?

    30. Re:Markets Work, Bitches by geekmux · · Score: 1

      People on various sides of various issues try not to believe it, would like not to believe it, but Markets Work. You can't stop them just by making rules against them, not without insanely powerful enforcement mechanisms..., and usually not even then.

      Well, that's certainly one creative way to describe the demand driven by physical and psychological addiction.

      Except that this has nothing to do with the argument. Markets work because people demand goods, period. Their motivation for the desire is completely irrelevant. It is a fundamental principle of economics that we always want as much of a good as we can consume. Why we want it doesn't matter.

      Bullshit. If that last statement were even remotely true, cigarette companies wouldn't have spent millions in R&D over the last half century to ensure their product is designed to maximize addiction. They sure as hell haven't spent millions to ensure cigarette smoke tastes like chocolate.

      You might argue that these types of drugs, driven by addiction are not actually a good, but are in fact a bad. The behavior of these markets would demonstrate otherwise.

      Uh, might argue? There's little arguing the end result of using crystal meth. Or crack cocaine. Or even a dependency to legal opiates. ALL tend to have a negative effect on the human body, and ALL are highly addictive. I don't have to argue they are a bad. Common sense does that.

      As far as the "behavior" of the markets, well it tends to become rather impossible to define that behavior when addiction is what fuels most of it. If these illegal drugs and the markets they create were such a benefit to society, then they wouldn't be illegal in the first damn place.

    31. Re:Markets Work, Bitches by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      No, but that doesn't make redistributing wealth necessarily a bad thing. Redistribution can be used to create perverse incentives, but it can also be used to cancel out perverse incentives. The primary mechanism for mitigating negative externalities is taxation (i.e. wealth redistribution). But this wealth redistribution is correcting the market so that the true cost of things is paid by those receiving the benefit, rather than unfairly passing those costs onto others.

    32. Re:Markets Work, Bitches by Some_Llama · · Score: 1

      "There's little arguing the end result of using crystal meth. "

      uh oh, better tell all the parents of children and adults living with ADHD who take this as a medication. (i've done both extensively, there is really no difference between meth and adderall/dexadrine).

  2. really??? by fafalone · · Score: 1

    Shutting down even top level targets has little to no impact?? Surely if we spend twice as much and sentence the next site runner to DOUBLE life, the online war on drugs will end in victory. -Typical drug warrior.

  3. The other drug problem by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

    Wait until the retired start using the dark web to get prescriptions filled from 'virtual Mexico' nationwide.

    1. Re:The other drug problem by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Wait until the retired start using the dark web to get prescriptions filled from 'virtual Mexico' nationwide.

      They already are. Short of doing that, go to Costco and you can get medication at pretty fair prices. Unless you're getting it for free or have a $5 co-pay, Costco is the way to go.

      For example, a popular anti-cholesterol drug, Atorvastatin, at Rite-Aid is $255 for 90 pills. The same pills bought through Costco are $16.

      If that's not price gouging, I don't know what is. They must be following the Martin Shkreli pricing plan.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    2. Re:The other drug problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It gets much worse than that. $3000 for a vial of snake anti-venom, and needing 16 doses..

    3. Re:The other drug problem by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 4, Interesting

      And atorvastatin is a generic, formerly Lipitor. The new monopolist strategy is to game the governmental restrictions on supply to raise the US prices for drugs which are generic worldwide. This was exactly Shkreli's strategy.

      What's new is use of the dark web, heretofore the domain of meth dealers and hitman agencies. When the federosaurus fined Google half a billion dollars (yes, billion with a B) for the crime of letting Canadian pharmacies advertise low prices to US customers, they set the stage for this. Now that places like Sun City are filling up with the generation that grew up dealing on black markets for recreational drugs, it won't be long before the bridge club installs a Tor node.

    4. Re:The other drug problem by Kierthos · · Score: 1

      I pay $5 for a bottle of Atorvastatin at SVC. It's only a month's supply, but still.... not as cheap as CostCo, but still pretty damn inexpensive.

      --
      Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
    5. Re:The other drug problem by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      I pay $5 for a bottle of Atorvastatin at SVC. It's only a month's supply, but still.... not as cheap as CostCo, but still pretty damn inexpensive.

      That's a good price. What's SVC, and is that with a copay or their actual price?

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
  4. Shocking! by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Who could have ever imagined that this could happen. Remember when we shut down Pirate Bay and completely stopped all copyright infringement? Oh wait, we just spawned hundreds more torrent sites, and even though kickass torrents was just taken down, pirate bay is actually back up again... What a giant waste of money.

    1. Re:Shocking! by Kierthos · · Score: 1

      But see, it makes them look like they're doing something.

      "We're stopping drug trafficking. Just look at these sites that we've closed! But we need more money to continue to fight drug traffickers, because don't you want your kids to be safe?"

      And hell, the RIAA doesn't want all movie piracy to go away. If it did, they'd have no justification for some of the shit that they pull. They just want the 'easy to acquire' piracy to go away.

      --
      Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
  5. I guess Law are useless then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Police should be disbanded.
    Governments shut down.
    Why even try.

    Oh wait that Alternative is even worse.

    Look at China's opium Problem and how they fixed it.
    Kill the Buyers, sellers, users, transporter.
    You have Drugs, execution.

    Would you like that better?

    1. Re:I guess Law are useless then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      perhaps we could just end prohibition and use the police and our government to pursue more productive endeavours?

    2. Re:I guess Law are useless then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, did it work? Did murdering people en masse solve the drug problem?

    3. Re:I guess Law are useless then by Air-conditioned+cowh · · Score: 2

      Prohibition is a stupid law and makes the police and courts look stupid when they try and enforce it.

    4. Re:I guess Law are useless then by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      The only thing prohibition ever did was to create criminals and enable them to rise to power. You think Al Capone would have ever been more than a petty criminal without alcohol prohibition?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re:I guess Law are useless then by turp182 · · Score: 1

      You should also consider the flip side. Law enforcement and the private prison complex are another corollary from prohibition, and they are big money.

      There's a lot of money to be made on either side of the fence with prohibition.

      I would argue that both sides are cartels, and both sides seem to enjoy the war, it is very profitable.

      --
      BlameBillCosby.com
    6. Re:I guess Law are useless then by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      War is always profitable for those on top. It's those at the bottom that fight and die in it.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  6. Shocking development by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 2

    "According to a new report from RAND, online drug sales have tripled since the site was shut down. NBC News reports"

    Who could have seen that coming? I mean, besides EVERYONE.

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
  7. Marijuana prohibition is a farce by MrKaos · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It causes less deaths than tobacco and alcohol and prohibition of it is just another form of social control. The absurdity of the 'house of cards' that prohibits it has more negative effects on society than the plant has ever caused and that's before we start looking at the plethora of medical benefits it has.

    Take marijuana off the black market and the funding for many other criminal operations will dry up.

    --
    My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    1. Re:Marijuana prohibition is a farce by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Translation I want to smoke pot.
      Now let me rationalize it.

      Legalize Pot and all other crimes will stop because Pot funds them.
      It makes so much money, they FUND other crime.
      That could all be tax money, deficit solved
      Thank you.

    2. Re:Marijuana prohibition is a farce by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Actually, it causes less death, pain and suffering and economic damage than fat and sugar, two completely uncontrolled substances. There is no rationality behind the "war on drugs", just a deep and repulsive desire to control others.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    3. Re: Marijuana prohibition is a farce by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Alcohol keeps getting you more and more intoxicated. Pot does not. You can't get high enough to be like a shit faced drunk. Alcohol can keep going until you die. With pot you'd have to smoke pounds upon pounds and there just isn't that much time in one day.

    4. Re:Marijuana prohibition is a farce by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is a false statement.
      Alcohol can get you very inebriated in under a minute.

    5. Re:Marijuana prohibition is a farce by MrKaos · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Translation I want to smoke pot. Now let me rationalize it.

      No need to rationalize it. People don't rationalize drinking beer, wine or spirits - they do it because they want to. Here is a rationalization for you, I like it, I laugh my ass off and I have a great time.

      However as a painkiller that my doctor suggested for having a snapped achillies tendon it was a much better option than liver failure from the oral painkillers I was taking.

      Legalize Pot and all other crimes will stop because Pot funds them.

      Why are you or anyone else qualified to make value judgements about peoples choices that have no impact on you.

      It makes so much money, they FUND other crime. That could all be tax money, deficit solved Thank you.

      What it does is criminalizes a lot of people that should not be exposed to the prison system. If you can, for a moment step out of your prejudice and ask yourself if the pot someone is smoking will do them more harm in ten years than a two year prison term will do, six months into it?

      Or how much policing for violent crimes a police officer can do if they are not writing up a pot arrest for 3 hours in the station? How much time is taken up in the court system dealing with cases, how many prison officers have to be hired to guard them?

      What does it say about a society that has social controls for a plant that has been with humanity for so long that there are receptors in our brain for Cannabinoids?

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    6. Re:Marijuana prohibition is a farce by MrKaos · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Your "freedom" stops at others' freedom

      Your freedom stops where someone else's begins. You have no right

      from your potentially reckless and harmful behaviour under the influence.

      You mean like drunk people? Here is the science what drugs cause what harm

      Pot gets you high much more easily than alcohol gets you drunk

      citation please

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    7. Re:Marijuana prohibition is a farce by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "citation please"

      I like sausages!

    8. Re:Marijuana prohibition is a farce by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Non-smoker here, mostly because for some odd reason that stuff doesn't work on me. But frankly, why should that be illegal and alcohol is legal?

      A court around here was tasked with answering this question and their verdict (I kid you not) was that "Alcohol is not consumed for its intoxicating properties". A German comedian quipped: "I had to think this over with a couple beer or a few dozen, and the next day I was enlightened: People obviously don't drink to get wasted, so they must do it for the nice head they have the next morning".

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    9. Re:Marijuana prohibition is a farce by jbmartin6 · · Score: 1

      I doubt we have the receptors because of a long association with the plant, as it seems you are implying. Apologies if I misunderstand that. A quick search didn't shed any light on why humans have the receptors though, they have some role in our biology. It is fairly common for organisms to be reusing the same compounds in different ways, given that they all evolved from a common ancestor.

      --
      This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
    10. Re:Marijuana prohibition is a farce by The-Ixian · · Score: 1

      I could *maybe* see where they were coming from if alcohol was only beer, wine, mead, cider, etc. But how would that explain hard liquor? I am pretty sure that nobody would drink anything over 30 proof for the taste...

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
    11. Re:Marijuana prohibition is a farce by The-Ixian · · Score: 1

      I am somewhat of a professional drinker and I still get tipsy off of 2 American lagers. Anything beyond that is getting drunk...

      On the other hand, when I have smoked pot in the past with any regularity, my tolerance for it goes way up and I have to smoke exponentially more in order to achieve the same effect.

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
    12. Re:Marijuana prohibition is a farce by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IIRC a lot of animal fondness for particular plants (like catnip) is because the plant repels insects. This might be an ancient defense against Republicans.

    13. Re:Marijuana prohibition is a farce by h4ck7h3p14n37 · · Score: 1

      Take marijuana off the black market and the funding for many other criminal operations will dry up.

      I wonder to what extent this is true, I would think that the money lies in powdered drugs like cocaine and heroin. It's very common for suppliers to cut their product to increase profit. You can't really do that with marijuana unless you do something like spray it with sugar water. It's also incredibly easy to grow a plant in a small space with mail-order seeds, you can't do that with a lot of other recreational drugs.

      I think these dark markets are a great development as they take away the risk of violence. Funds are sent over the Internet and product is delivered by mail. Bad sellers get sorted out based on community feedback. Drug scheduling in the U.S. means that a lot of substances people want to research cannot be obtained legally.

    14. Re:Marijuana prohibition is a farce by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sigh.

      There are plenty of men who drink fine whisky (known as Scotch) at levels of 46% or higher in purity. I'm one of them. I prefer around 43% though, with one ice cube so it doesn't get watered down. Preferably a large, square, ice cube made for Scotch.

      Once you acquire a palate for it, it's quite beautifully tasty. I prefer Lagavulin, but also Cao Isla and sometimes Bruchladdich to mix it up.

      They are some of the most delicious liquors in the world. I feel sorry for my former self, the one in college, who thought whisky was supposed to taste bad! Oh the years I wasted on bourbon. Oh well.

    15. Re:Marijuana prohibition is a farce by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "30 proof"? HA! In the US that means 15% alcohol by volume. That's like a strong wine, silly.

      I think you meant 30 PERCENT, or perhaps 60 proof. Please learn about things before you spout your mouth off online:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_proof

    16. Re:Marijuana prohibition is a farce by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      "citation please"

      I like sausages!

      Then how would you like it if you were told it was illegal to eat them.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  8. well.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    the people who are "fighting" the "war on drugs" don't actually want to "win"
    Think about it

    1. Re:well.. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Can you name one "war on ..." that was actually meant to be won?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:well.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The war on the third reich/imperial japan? Currently, the war on individual liberty and privacy.

  9. FBI BurEAU HD story? Hm maybe we better crack down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fucking punks.

    In your torrc files... block all USA. Period. Slashdot is all FBI stories and bait now.

    add these two lines to your torrc
    StrictNodes 1
    ExcludeNodes {us}

    http://www.b3rn3d.com/blog/2014/03/05/tor-country-codes/

    Don't use any Tails 1.5 or later either.

  10. Keep cannabis away from kids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Legalize cannabis for responsible adults to enjoy in the privacy of their own homes. A portion of the tax revenue given to law enforcement will more than make up for the loss of income from fines and property seizures. This will also cut down on unreported serious crimes caused by black market growers/dealers being robbed by armed thugs.

  11. Poor reading comprehension by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Little to no impact/ I'd say they need to go back to college. Tripling the market is a huge impact. Its not the impact they wanted, but its still a huge one.

  12. But Nancy Reagan ... by DishpanMan · · Score: 1

    ... Said "Just say no to drugs". Why is it not working? Oh, the problem is more complex than the over simplified political drivel. Treatment and education is much more difficult to implement than incarceration, albeit cheaper and less profitable ...

  13. All Prohibition is a Farce by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't let the comment above about Marijuana sway you. Marijuana, for anyone who has tried it and the big three legal drugs (alcohol, coffee and cigarettes), all three of which I have been addicted to, one of which I have quit, is barely a drug. Once you get used to the effects, it is a very safe substance. Marijuana legalization is not controversial. This is: Legalize it all.

    Legalize it all.

    There is no reason is the supposedly leader of the free world that the government can make you a labor slave for what you choose to consume in your privacy. America ain't America anymore, and the drug war is the vanguard. If you believe in liberty, come hell or high water, you must support the legalization of all consumables.

  14. Can Kill the Website But Can't Kill the Idea by mentil · · Score: 1

    You can kill Silk Road, but you can't kill the IDEA of Silk Road. That's the real reason for the increase. Once people learn about the 'dark web' and how to use bitcoins to buy stuff on it, shutting down an individual site doesn't matter much, and every shutdown gets major publicity which turns more people on to the dark web.

    --
    Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    1. Re:Can Kill the Website But Can't Kill the Idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And then the dark web becomes criminalized (already is in the public eye thanks to media portrayal) and merely having the tools to access it ends up carrying a mandatory prison sentence. How would you like it, becoming a convicted felon because you have some software on your computer? You're not dealing with your nerdy chums here, you're dealing with the State: pure, unadulterated raw power that cannot be matched by anything you know and that is showing less and less restraint in its willingness to use it. They can do it: they can destroy a life just to make an example, with no consquences whatsoever. Remember what happened to Aaron Swartz? They will do it, again and again, as many times as it takes, as many times as they like.

    2. Re:Can Kill the Website But Can't Kill the Idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mandatory prison sentence? citations please.

      last i checked, Tor was still legal and so is Bitcoin. in the US anyways. it's what you USE them for that leads to prison.

      I am a Tor researcher, and I run several Bitcoin nodes and miners. have for a long time.

      OK coppers! come and get me......(crickets chirping).....(tumbleweed rolls by)

  15. The actual cause of ALL of this by slashmydots · · Score: 1

    Apparently, from what I heard, they just drop the illegal drugs in the mail. You know, like the US postal service. What the hell. When I asked someone why they don't have drug-sniffing dogs, they said it's an unreasonable search and seizure amendment thing. BULLSHIT IT IS. They're at airports. They're at ports. They're everywhere! Neither are considered completely US soil sort of but still. Looking at the outside of a car during a traffic stop is legal. A dog sniffing the outside of a package for cocaine powder is completely legal. This is utterly ridiculous. People shouldn't be able to just drop illegal items into the mail. In fact, I'm 99.9999999% sure they scan USPS mail for radiation and bust it open if it has radiation coming out of it. Why the hell are they not doing this for drugs?!

    1. Re:The actual cause of ALL of this by sjames · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So what's your address. I'll anonymously send you a free sample by mail. Boy are you going to have fun when they execute that no knock warrant!

      The real problem is that everything that touches money smells like drugs these days. They'll be ripping open birthday cards to grandkids all day long.

      The other problem is they would catch far too many of the wrong drug users. Wall Street and Hollywood would be empty wastelands, for example.

    2. Re:The actual cause of ALL of this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just about all the drugs sent from darknet sellers are vacuum sealed (often double vacuum sealed just in case). So inspecting the outside of the package won't give you any clues about the contents.

    3. Re:The actual cause of ALL of this by fafalone · · Score: 1

      I don't know who you asked, but it sure couldn't have been an actual postal inspector. It's mainly a question of resources; they absolutely do use drug dogs, and x-rays look for signs of drugs too. But it's mainly focused on packages arriving from overseas. That level of inspection of domestic mail is well beyond current funding because of the volume. According to, um, people, maybe 5% of packages from overseas get intercepted in the US? Vacuum sealed or not. Postal inspectors on occasion will intercept domestic drug shipments too. There's a long list of techniques they use, which you'd have found if instead of asking someone with no particular knowledge of this topic, you actually researched it. If they don't find anything, they typically re-seal so well you don't even know it was opened. If they do find something, you get a funny letter basically saying "uh, we've got your drugs, come down here and claim them if you're somehow not breaking a law, otherwise we're keeping them".

    4. Re:The actual cause of ALL of this by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Why the hell are they not doing this for drugs?!

      For the same reason they're still carrying junk mail even though it's destructive to the environment upon which we all depend. If they stop it, they will go out of business. Do you have any idea how many tons of drugs are in the mail at any given time? That's a lot of revenue.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:The actual cause of ALL of this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, I've order fairly radioactive items via the mail, high-rad count thorium, uranium ore, and uranium glass, and never had an issue with postal inspections intercepting or even opening the packages. The packages weren't marked in any way, other than the usual destination and return addresses, to my rural home. Pretty sure they don't scan USPS or any other carrier's packages for radiation.

  16. Drug Prohibition Addiction by spiritwave · · Score: 1

    While much less than 1% of the (at least American) population abuses "illicit" drugs (at least according to consistent U.S. government usage statistics combined with the Institute of Medicine's dependency rates table), literally millions of non-violent (so sanely innocent) lives have been demonstrably ruined to varying degrees (including horrific and even deadly ones) by Certain Drug Prohibition (if you will) – the 'bigger and badder' sequel to Alcohol Prohibition, which "mysteriously" required a federal constitutional amendment to judicially establish and enforce.

    Another similar amendment ended Alcohol Prohibition for basically the same reasons that should have intelligently prevented Certain Drug Prohibition in the "land of the free".

    Several decades ago, the Commerce Clause ("To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes") was illegally judicially redefined (according to the public record combined with the English language) to regulate any activity having a substantial effect on commerce. By "interpreting" that clause, our Supreme Court granted Congress the authority to ban (not regulate) the mere possession of a certain plant, for prime example. That's why I put illicit in unrealism quotes above.

    Factually speaking, the war on (some politicized) drugs is ineffective, destructive, expensive, unconstitutional, and unwarranted.

    We don't even have a "drug free" prison system, nor one shred of concrete (so credible) evidence proving we live in even a slightly more "drug free" America as a result of spending many billions of taxpayer dollars annually.

    Drug abuse (which is clearly distinct from use, despite the prohibitionists unethically interchanging use and abuse merely for their demonizing convenience) is a health – not criminal – issue by any sound reasoning.

    The war on some drugs can only be righteously described as sanctioned thuggery.

    Prohibition provides an enormous (and otherwise unachievable) profit margin to black market organizations of all sizes. That money empowers them (even small gangs) with military grade weaponry, bribery power, and so on – so is a much more serious threat to genuinely good members of law enforcement (including border patrol) and even those criminal organizations horrendously violently competing with each other.

    Legalization (with a firm educational push involving the actual risks of any given drug in the Information Age logically leading to the Education Age) instantly cuts that serious financial supply line (as it did with Alcohol Prohibition), and the idea that drug use increases upon legalization must involve the assumption that prohibition works (which it clearly doesn't) – as opposed to market saturation theory (i.e. a minority of people desire the use of these drugs, apparently like a minority of people desire to skydive, and they already have workable channels to secure access to those drugs).

    Drug prohibition addiction is the genuine drug "scourge" and "epidemic" (as the mainstream media loves to call the drug problem), ironically speaking.

    Drug prohibition addicts deceive the public and effectively steal taxpayer money to get their prohibition fix – hypocritically the macrocosm of the stereotypical heroin addict.

    Only a proper public intervention against drug prohibition addicts suffices to save literally millions of more innocent lives in the coming decades from yet another baseless and selfishly reckless form of minority persecution in the "land of the free" that was sold to the public in the pathetically traditional form of "protecting the children".

    --
    Sines of Impending Sines
    1. Re:Drug Prohibition Addiction by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      While much less than 1% of the (at least American) population abuses "illicit" drugs (at least according to consistent U.S. government usage statistics combined with the Institute of Medicine's dependency rates table)

      HAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHAHAH

      Marijuana is an "illicit" drug and vastly more than 1% of the population of the US is using it. The rest of your comment is surely as ignorant, so I shall skip it. FYI, over ten percent of Americans admit to using it "regularly", and that's just the group that's willing to say it in a survey. You have literally no idea what you are on about. Unless you actually meant to use "abuse" in the real sense, and not the bullshit legal PR sense... which I doubt

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re: Drug Prohibition Addiction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You would actually benefit from reading the rest of his post, might teach you proper literacy along the way.

    3. Re:Drug Prohibition Addiction by spiritwave · · Score: 1

      Use is distinct from abuse.

      In addition to literally no experimental science confirming the contrary (you pathetic jackass), even the Controlled Substances Act (your terrible reply suggests that you probably don't even know what that is, so it's basically the judicial basis for Certain Drug Prohibition) confirms that distinction by stating the most dangerous drugs have a "high potential for abuse".

      Everything I carefully wrote is factual, but your hideous reply is the kind of brainless nonsense pressed into your so-called brain by people with a seriously high and unethical financial stake in mass rights infringement to ruin millions of lives. Way to go, tool.

      Those same people are the same ones proclaiming those drugs are the most dangerous, while the science they cite is weakly suggestive at best (demonstrably junk science in the case of cannabis, which is statistically reported to be about 73% of "illicit" drug intake).

      Now do you want to go back and read it carefully with civility and intellect, so the lame insults can cease for genuine progress, drinkypoo?

      --
      Sines of Impending Sines
  17. Prohibition is a failed policy by Maritz · · Score: 1

    Has to stop. All prohibition does is make cartels billions. That's all it fucking does. People who want it still get it, end-of-fucking-story. Stop worrying about what adults put in their own bodies and start fucking worrying about the sinking ship you're on.

    --
    I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
  18. uh, yeah by DriveDog · · Score: 1

    RAND generally doesn't make stuff up, and I haven't read the report yet, but my knee-jerk reaction is that these can't be known with any ballpark accuracy in anything approaching a short term.

  19. Well... by MitchDev · · Score: 1

    The best way to reduce profits and insentive from drug sales? Legalize them, regulate them, and sell them like nicotine and alcohol.

    Druglords can't compete with Walmart and thousands of liquor stores....

    1. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DEA just decided not to resched cannabis, so I predict this dark web marketplace will continue to grow.

  20. Streisand effect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Haha

  21. Routing round failures and blockages by John+Allsup · · Score: 1

    Just as the internet does, the drug trade routes round blockages. Fail to provide a legal alternative that is at least as convenient and inexpensive as the $300bn/yr worldwide industry run by organised crime, and, de facto, you give them a monopoly in a lucrative business. Only a safe, convenient legal alternative can deprive them of that market, aside from possibly a worldwide police state on a scale that would make 1984 look like a teddy bears' tea party.

    --
    John_Chalisque