Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Shedding light on the dark web

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 196 posts

Re: Shedding light on the dark web

#181

Post by runeks »

__xjb__ wrote: post #166
sremani wrote: post #3

Darknet markets are like Hydra with 10 heads, when Silk Road is taken down, more players entered and when one other dark-market owners closed shop and jumped with vendors bit-coins, new ones with multi-escrow showed up. Again, with each take down people are improvising and making the system a bit more resilient.

What an excellent example of Nicholas Naseem Taleb's concept of antifragility.

It's evolution. Survival of the fittest, quite simply. The weakest are taken down, leaving more customers for the remaining, stronger competitors.

Re: Shedding light on the dark web

#182

Post by dredmorbius »

acctid4325 wrote: post #77
dopamean wrote: post #11

Any time I read anything about the illegal drug trade I am struck by how much the industry would change if all drugs were legalized everywhere. So much effort is expended to keep things hidden from law enforcement and other criminals that it adds an incredible amount of friction to the purchasing process for the purchaser and the seller. From the buyer's perspective you now have to go into business with some often un…

To what extend it is society's job to protect people from themselves? So let's assume that we legalize 'drugs' for everyone: can I now buy pot and meth and acid and heroine and what not complete with shooting accessories from 7-Eleven? Are we seriously proposing that people in masses would be able to responsibly consume these newly available substances. If there is doubt, maybe we add, similar to obtaining a drivers…

I think there's a fair argument to be made for protecting people from themselves. Or of protecting those who cannot make fully informed decisions from themselves or others: the unborn, infants and children, the ill, the mentally handicapped, the insane, the elderly and senile.

Which raises the question of how to go about doing this. Treating substances which short-circuit the brain's own reward and pleasure centers as illegal to use doesn't seem like it's quite working. I'm willing to explore other options.

The alternative need not be abosolutely unfettered access and sale. There are substantial parts of the world in which alcohol, for example, is available and for sale. From government-owned-and-operated establishments only. With great power comes great responsibility, etc., etc.

Taking active measures to discourage abuse, and to provide full, free, and effective treatments to that end would help a lot. As would requiring strict liability to producers and retailers of harmful goods, substances, and services for the damage cause. Say, automobiles, alcohol, tobacco, gambling, and guns, among others.

Re: Shedding light on the dark web

#183

Post by andrei_says_ »

mistermann wrote: post #43
dopamean wrote: post #11

Any time I read anything about the illegal drug trade I am struck by how much the industry would change if all drugs were legalized everywhere. So much effort is expended to keep things hidden from law enforcement and other criminals that it adds an incredible amount of friction to the purchasing process for the purchaser and the seller. From the buyer's perspective you now have to go into business with some often un…

> It's really a shitty experience for everyone involved. However, it creates many thousands of very well paid jobs for police, lawyers, prison employees, etc. - you know, the people that create the laws. Long ago I might have considered that there might be some justification for these laws (or anywhere there's rules really), but nowadays when you wonder why "the way something is" is, it's easier to just assume someon…

And, by design, "makes it illegal to be black or a hippie etc."

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/john-ehrlichman-richa...

This was never about health issues. It is a verified conspiracy against a large part of society.

Re: Shedding light on the dark web

#184

Post by tn13 »

dopamean wrote: post #11

Any time I read anything about the illegal drug trade I am struck by how much the industry would change if all drugs were legalized everywhere. So much effort is expended to keep things hidden from law enforcement and other criminals that it adds an incredible amount of friction to the purchasing process for the purchaser and the seller. From the buyer's perspective you now have to go into business with some often un…

One sentence: It benefits the government.

If government legalizes drug usage it would solve hell lot of problems in society and it will create far more legitimate arguments to force government to get rid of their control on other aspects such as surveillance, soda-tobacco taxes, prescription drugs etc.

At this moment there are far too many commercial and vested interests involved in all this shit and radical reform wont come easy.

Re: Shedding light on the dark web

#185

Post by andrei_says_ »

skylark wrote: post #53
mistermann wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's really a shitty experience for everyone involved. However, it creates many thousands of very well paid jobs for police, lawyers, prison employees, etc. - you know, the people that create the laws. Long ago I might have considered that there might be some justification for these laws (or anywhere there's rules really), but nowadays when you wonder why "the way something is" is, it's easier to just assume someon…

I find it hard to believe that there's some sort of conspiracy to keep police, lawyers, and prisons funded via laws against selling drugs. Have you considered that these laws are still in place simply because it's the status quo? Politicians voting on laws and drafting new ones must ultimately answer to their constituents. While the vast majority of things fly under the radar, "pro-drug" support is enough of a charge…

I posted this in the parent but will repeat it here as it is relevant to your question.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/john-ehrlichman-richa...

If we look at this prohibition as an initiative not for reducing drug use but an initiative for policing people, I would say that it does work as intended.

Re: Shedding light on the dark web

#186

Post by brokenmachine »

MichaelGG wrote: post #179
brokenmachine wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed, even the hygiene part could use some open innovation. Right now IV users mostly have to repurpose insulin needles (interchangeable thin needles (like 30G)) are rare. Long-term IV use is geared towards hospital use. Needles aren't illegal, are they? Can't people just buy them?

They are hard to obtain in many places. Plus "no one" does IV-direct-to-vein-injections on a regular basis. It's either IM (so larger needles), subcutaneous (like insulin), or IV catheter (larger needles, expected to stay in a day or longer). So even in places that do carry needles, it's unlikely you'll find e.g. Luer-Lock 30G. In some places it's illegal, as it's "drug paraphernalia". In the UK there was even a stor…

Wow.

If there's any better evidence that the drug wars have nothing to do with public health or safety, I haven't heard it. That's bananas.

Re: Shedding light on the dark web

#187

Post by brokenmachine »

brokenmachine wrote: post #165
Archio wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why have you never tried heroin? I am struck by how often the response to that question is not "because it is illegal".

I have never tried heroin because at the time when I learned about it, I looked at some information and came to the conclusion that it would not be a good decision to make given the physical addictiveness of the drug. To be honest, I attributed almost zero weight to the fact that it was illegal. Remember, opiates are legal now, with a prescription. I wonder, hypothetically if there was a drug where the effects were a…

Oh, I forgot to say that also it seemed much more dangerous to directly inject a drug of unknown providence into your vein than to smoke or swallow it. There's also a risk of infection that isn't there with drugs taken by a different method.

Re: Shedding light on the dark web

#188

Post by brokenmachine »

hasenj wrote: post #162
brokenmachine wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure what you're saying. Are you implying that teenagers in Japan don't do drugs, or just that they don't rebel by using drugs? Because teenagers in Japan most certainly do do drugs, both legal and illegal, dangerous or not. It's interesting that you use the phrase "dangerous drugs", I assume you meant to write "illegal drugs". I would argue that making any drug illegal immediately makes it 1000x more dangero…

I'm under the impression that something like heroin is dangerous while marijuana is not. > Because teenagers in Japan most certainly do do drugs, both legal and illegal, dangerous or not. I'd bet you a lot of money that the problem there is much much smaller than in the US. They have their own problems though. No society is without problems.

> It has all to do with communities breaking down and social relations deteriorating.

> I'd bet you a lot of money that the problem there is much much smaller than in the US. They have their own problems though. No society is without problems.

So what is your point? You're saying community in the US is breaking down, and that's causing drug problems?

How do you suggest the US deals with its larger drug problems than Japan that are caused by communities breaking down and social relations deteriorating, if not by dealing with its drug laws?

Re: Shedding light on the dark web

#189

Post by pzone »

hasenj wrote: post #127
pzone wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're mischaracterizing people here. I think everyone would agree drug addiction is a problem that requries some government intervention. But clearly the policy we have right now is not great. The argument is that legalization + prevention + treatment would be, overall, better than prohibition. Not perfect, but better.

Addiction is a personal psychological problem. How can the government intervene? The government cannot make you happy. Look at obesity rates. People get addicted because their life sucks. How can the government make their life not suck?

Sometimes government can solve problems, other times it can't. Even in the case of obesity, the government at least tries to educate people. But addiction is not so similar to obesity, because it's much easier to monitor and control people's drug use through regulation than it is to monitor and control people's food intake.

I think drug use is more like payday lending. Payday lending a shady industry, people who take advantage of it are often not too well off, and sometimes people make terrible decisions and screw up their lives, to the profit of the lenders. (or drug dealers.) But people are always going to want to borrow money for short periods of time just like people are always going to want to use drugs. No government policy is going to make everyone in the world happy, but we can try to minimize the number of miserable outcomes with some careful intervention.

Re: Shedding light on the dark web

#190

Post by hasenj »

pzone wrote: post #189
hasenj wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Addiction is a personal psychological problem. How can the government intervene? The government cannot make you happy. Look at obesity rates. People get addicted because their life sucks. How can the government make their life not suck?

Sometimes government can solve problems, other times it can't. Even in the case of obesity, the government at least tries to educate people. But addiction is not so similar to obesity, because it's much easier to monitor and control people's drug use through regulation than it is to monitor and control people's food intake. I think drug use is more like payday lending. Payday lending a shady industry, people who take…

The only viable intervention is education.

Case in point: school lunch in Japan

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vwC51FxP10

I have an eery feeling that something like this will never fly in the US. People will complain about 'muh freedom'.

Post reply on HN