> On Aug 30, 2017, at 10:36 AM, Ben Tasker <b...@bentasker.co.uk> wrote: > > > Yup, or, it's entirely successful in it's aim and none but the most > determined can use the markets. Which results in the alienated users now > buying back off the street, getting a lower quality product and putting > themselves in greater physical danger. Essentially reclaiming the hold that > cartels and the like have historically held over the street (not that it's > weakend much, but any reduction is still a good thing). >
While you do address it int hat last sentence, I think it bears thinking through. I’m not sure that the ‘cartels’ - these are not fear quotes, truly just ambiguity - have ever been damaged, deterred, or even marginally diminished by the existence of anonymous markets. In fact, the aspects of the hustle where the opportunity for violence presents itself most frequently with greatest amplitude is still between tribes of manufacturers and those that protect their interests in areas of the world where life seems to have a lower cash or bitcoin value than it does on the relatively rich street the average consumer lives on. In fact, they are now able to drive a market in relative comfort, while the industry itself still relies on bulk violence it has not been democratically granted to produced and traffic the product in bulk, step on it in transit and then sell it to the perisitent and dedicated retail folks with he technical sophistication and temerity to use these fleeting markets and access the users. Without total global decriminalization, this is just another layer of wool, protecting the rich consumer from the ugliness of the industrially produced of the red meat he consumes. >> >> This is "war on drugs"-type thinking. Speaking as someone who to-date has >> never even smoked pot, this seems like an intensely dumb idea. >> > > Intensely dumb is about right. There are a good number of examples around > the world now of a better way to approach it, but it's going to be a very > long time before sense kicks in sadly. > I think I agree with this, but wouldn’t want any of us to kid ourselves about the outsourcing of violence, and the premium, classist nature of Silk Road type drug markets. Nice if you can afford it, right? They kind of ‘decriminalization’ without ‘legalizing’ leaves the armies of violent producers, the cartels, in tact, increasing the security wth which the end user can demand the product. My sense is that of the drugs of abuse in the north-east US (MASS, NY, NH ME) the ones I’m aware of anyway, in the most common, desperate and potentially violent circumstances an end user faces sell in increments that don’t move enough money to warrant taking the transaction online and still profiting. 5 or 10 dollar hits of dope are sold to the nearly sick. TOR drug markets are more for the experimental college kid, recreational users, rich suburban housewives that have pill habits and can afford to keep themselves up out of the muck. Even knowing roughly how much money passed and passes through there, it’s not even the tip of an iceberg were talking about, with respect to the behavior of the cartels or whit drives street level dealers, or is it? Am I missing the point? JC -- tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org To unsubscribe or change other settings go to https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
