I received a similar letter in 2006 from ESA while in the dorms at UC Berkeley. All I was asked to do was to take down the infringing material and notified that if I did it again I would have my internets revoked. No word from then in 2+ years.
However, their premise of "reducing harm" is questionable. How can we be sure that a person who decided to purchase these drugs (against all warnings) really believes that not buying them is the best thing for him? What if this person really wants to purchase a drug that he thinks will enlarge him? Who gives the researchers the right to decide what other people should spend their money on? Under several legal interpretations, forcing a person not to buy something perceived as harmful is not legal: denying to sell cigarettes to a person of legal age may be illegal, under discrimination laws.
The site that the spam normally points to actually sends placebos or mislabled painkillers instead of the actual drugs, so I don't think this is really an ethical issue.
However, even if the site did send the real drugs, it is *not* difficult to find an alternative website willing to sell the same items. Not to mention the fact that the sending of the spam was illegal in the first place.
I received a similar letter in 2006 from ESA while in the dorms at UC Berkeley. All I was asked to do was to take down the infringing material and notified that if I did it again I would have my internets revoked. No word from then in 2+ years.
However, their premise of "reducing harm" is questionable. How can we be sure that a person who decided to purchase these drugs (against all warnings) really believes that not buying them is the best thing for him? What if this person really wants to purchase a drug that he thinks will enlarge him? Who gives the researchers the right to decide what other people should spend their money on? Under several legal interpretations, forcing a person not to buy something perceived as harmful is not legal: denying to sell cigarettes to a person of legal age may be illegal, under discrimination laws.
The site that the spam normally points to actually sends placebos or mislabled painkillers instead of the actual drugs, so I don't think this is really an ethical issue. However, even if the site did send the real drugs, it is *not* difficult to find an alternative website willing to sell the same items. Not to mention the fact that the sending of the spam was illegal in the first place.