51–60 of 95 posts
"Duch also described how the Silk Road’s customer base allowed him to reach buyers who he believed wouldn’t have otherwise had access to his product. "
ergo, one of their arguments is going to be that SR created a drug market, and made addicts of innocent children who were looking for my little pony pictures and got tricked into taking smack.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interesting, I never realized that the Taliban reversed its position on heroin and now supports its production. Thank God we invaded. Anyway, this [0] Quora answer, specifically pointing out the New York/New Jersey market, states that most heroin in the US comes from South America. I suspect that the CIA played a big part in creating these cartels in the first place, and if it reverted to individual buyers getting th…
Look, I'm as pro-legalisation as they come, but this sort of delusional reasoning is hurting our case, because it makes us all look stupid. Large scale poppy and coca production requires resources far beyond a single farmer growing, processing and shipping envelopes from the jungle in SA. The reason cartels control manufacture, import and wholesale distribution is because it requires significant logistical, financial…
I'm not saying a single farmer could vertically integrate from opium to heroin, but aren't small businesses possible? They would certainly benefit from flexibility and being under-the-radar in a way that could offset the negatives of not having an economy of scale.
And on your last point, I didn't mean that the CIA went in and set up shop, first "creating" the cartel. But a single buyer (possible), or at least one who allows specific individuals to operate (almost definite), certainly helps in the creation, so to speak, of the larger criminal organization by giving their suppliers or smugglers a hand up on those who have to worry about running afoul of the DEA and other authorities.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
why not to legalize something that hurts just the one who takes it? The same logic would require us to delegalize alcohol. Remember, we had booze dealers with machine guns terrorizing whole cities, like Chicago, before we came back to our senses and legalized it. Can you see Corona dealers fighting with Coors dealers for a territory to sell beer? Why not? This is the EXACT reality of 1920s in this country. I don't ca…
You don't have to be in favour of the current war on drugs to be in favour of heroin being illegal - and this is key selling heroin being illegal. Even Portugal, held up as the example of decriminalization only decriminalized possession not distribution. Being a heroin addict should be treated as a social/medical problem and people given all the help they can to get clean, but we absolutely shouldn't be encouraging p…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
...at $3,500 a week the price reduction would have to be huge before any legal drug wouldn't continue to create acquisitive crime to fund it I infer from this statement that you believe that, in the case of legalization, the price would still be high enough to require crime. Do you have any reason to believe that heroin is inherently more expensive to manufacture than, say, aspirin? Also, unless heroin addiction skew…
The UK estimates that between a third and a half of all acquisitive crime in the UK is committed by class A drug users. You're assuming that in the case of legalisation there wouldn't be sin taxes, which given alcohol and cigarettes (and indeed weed) would be incredibly unlikely. The problem with heroin is that once you are abusing it you need more and more but it starts to destroy your ability to earn the funds to p…
My experience is that "those" crimes are caused by trauma and mental illness, but I guess the drug use is the easy thing to blame. It correlates super high at that point.
My experience with most of this is second-hand.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
why not to legalize something that hurts just the one who takes it? The same logic would require us to delegalize alcohol. Remember, we had booze dealers with machine guns terrorizing whole cities, like Chicago, before we came back to our senses and legalized it. Can you see Corona dealers fighting with Coors dealers for a territory to sell beer? Why not? This is the EXACT reality of 1920s in this country. I don't ca…
From what I understand, heroin when injected is so addictive that using it even once can put you on a path you never would have gone anywhere near. It takes rational thought out of the occasion, changes your personality and your goals - your life becomes about getting your next fix and you'll do anything to get it. Beer, weed, ecstacy, etc don't have that same steep addictive power, so aren't dangerous in that way. S…
Entirely incorrect. You'll need to take it daily for at least a month or so for withdrawals to even begin to effect you.
There are good arguments against heroin. We don't need to use propaganda and falsehoods to do so, in my opinion.
Trying to sway the jury with emotional impact rather than appeals to reason is not how it should be done.
I would have asked the witness the source of the $3,500 before he had access to Silk Road. But it doesn't seem just an arbitrary emotional trick.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
why not to legalize something that hurts just the one who takes it? The same logic would require us to delegalize alcohol. Remember, we had booze dealers with machine guns terrorizing whole cities, like Chicago, before we came back to our senses and legalized it. Can you see Corona dealers fighting with Coors dealers for a territory to sell beer? Why not? This is the EXACT reality of 1920s in this country. I don't ca…
From what I understand, heroin when injected is so addictive that using it even once can put you on a path you never would have gone anywhere near. It takes rational thought out of the occasion, changes your personality and your goals - your life becomes about getting your next fix and you'll do anything to get it. Beer, weed, ecstacy, etc don't have that same steep addictive power, so aren't dangerous in that way. S…
All bullshit. The vast majority of people who try heroin (even multiple times) do not get addicted.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
why not to legalize something that hurts just the one who takes it? The same logic would require us to delegalize alcohol. Remember, we had booze dealers with machine guns terrorizing whole cities, like Chicago, before we came back to our senses and legalized it. Can you see Corona dealers fighting with Coors dealers for a territory to sell beer? Why not? This is the EXACT reality of 1920s in this country. I don't ca…
You don't have to be in favour of the current war on drugs to be in favour of heroin being illegal - and this is key selling heroin being illegal. Even Portugal, held up as the example of decriminalization only decriminalized possession not distribution. Being a heroin addict should be treated as a social/medical problem and people given all the help they can to get clean, but we absolutely shouldn't be encouraging p…
That isn't a true statement even now, but it's the mindset people bring to discussions about decriminalization.
Legalization does not need to mean "encouraging people to take it up." If we want to end the war on drugs, we need to all accept responsibility for determining what is safe for ourselves. The government's role should be in providing information and support.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Heroin is... Interesting. I was an addict for 6 years. I ran two businesses (one successfully), held down excellent jobs for amazing agencies, built cool stuff, had numerous relationships that were both good and bad. Most of heroin's issues arise because of its illegality, coupled with its price. I was spending $400 a day. It's nearly impossible to keep afloat with that sort of outgoing expense. Heroin also makes me…
This is interesting, as it turns my viewpoint on its head. I firmly believed heroin addicts were all zombies. You are arguing they are quite completely saveable. It changes my view on whether it is useful to help somebody. Do you have any references for this?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But in terms of harm reduction Silk Road was pretty awesome (fwiw, I never used the service). Not only did it derisk buying and selling drugs... I don't see how it follows that derisking drug sales necessarily didn't increase harm. Yes, if you were selling drugs on Silk Road you were less likely to get into a violent confrontation with a client. Yes, if you were buying drugs on Silk Road you were less likely to get…
> Heroin isn't weed. It destroys lives of its users and certainly harms the society at large. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8965411 Also a sibling comment maccard. Also google "krokodil". In short it's not heroin that destroys lives, it's idiotic policy which makes heroin (or other opiates) very expensive (destroying users' careers and relationships) or unavailable (destroying users' health via them trying…
For example in the UK, needle exchanges - places where you can get clean needles and other paraphenalia - have been well established since the late 1980s to help protect people who inject drugs against the infection risks of needle sharing. It's been credited with greatly reducing the prevalence of HIV and hepatitis viruses amongst that population.
Similarly, heroin addicts are often prescribed synthetic opiates such as methadone and buprenorphine, to prevent their reliance on dealers. This doesn't much reduce deaths from overdose, but does seem to prevent societal harm. Indeed if you are charged with theft or robbery and it turns out that it was to help feed your opiate addiction, it's not uncommon for the judge to offer access to a treatment programme in lieu of a custodial sentence.
There is however a problem with user compliance. Some recent research over the past decade or so has been in 'contingency management', where addicts are offered financial rewards to attend or comply with such treatments. It's very controversial and so far has had mixed results, but the idea is that the overall cost to the state will be reduced, in that a small 'bribe' can put people on the right path, hopefully leading to feeling more intrinsically rewarded by the success of the treatment, and that is less expensive than medical treatment later on.
But despite all this, as you imply, it does need the political will behind it to have any good effect.