Hacker News Reader

Comment by baddox | Hacker News Reader

> it doesn't seem like a massive logical leap to suggest that shutting down a particularly convenient and unique part of the supply chain will have an effect on consumption and therefore the negative effects of consumption.

It seems quite likely that Silk Road was one of the safest ways to acquire these drugs. It seems likely to me that shutting down Silk Road would have two effects: reducing consumption by casual (non-addicted) recreational users who will not bother with less convenient and safe sources, and driving addicted users to less convenient and safe sources. You might argue that the first effect is slightly beneficial, but I think it is far outweighed by the harmfulness of the second effect.

> I've still got no real moral qualms about punishing someone who enriches themselves off so much harm to others.

This is just another way to rephrase the claim that Silk Road did net harm to others, which we were just debating.

View on HN

I agree with your overall point, but you're forgetting a third effect: preventing non-current-drug users scared of more conventional venues, but not by Silk Road (which, as you point out, is comparatively convenient and safe), from buying drugs from there (and then possibly developing an addiction). I don't know how large a segment of the population that might be, but addictions have to start somewhere.

The overwhelming majority of opiates that kids begin experimenting with are found from professional chemists, with testing requirements on purity -- and are safely packaged in their parents' or friends' parents' cabinets.

Spending the money on the Silk Road trial on ads talking about how addictive and dangerous stuff from the pharmacy can be -- even more so than stuff on the street -- and that you need to be careful experimenting with medicines would likely do more to keep people safe from opiates than shutting down Silk Road.

(There's a similar argument to be made about stimulants and ADD/ADHD meds.)

Really, the only things that people can find on Silk Road which doesn't have a ready medical analog that's abused by people all the time is marijuana and hallucinogens -- the drugs on the safest end of the spectrum.

If your conjecture is true, and Silk Road gets people out of their pill cabinet on to safer things to experiment with, then it's actually making people safer to let them explore like that.

The problem with these debates is that drug policy involves a complex network of different pieces that are interlinked, and what seems like a straight forward solution to one issue actually ends up backfiring when the effects move through the network.

> This is just another way to rephrase the claim that Silk Road did net harm to others, which we were just debating.

It is not. Enriching yourself off of harm to others is a distinct issue from the net harm you're causing in the world.

To use the prosecutor's analogy, a drug dealer who sells an unadulterated product with clean needles does not get a free pass on being a drug dealer.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com