[codeshaman]

Yeah, I guess, like all "countercultural" revolutions, the dark markets ran out of steam a bit. So did Bitcoin.

But the paradigm has shifted. Dark markets are possible.

We now know a lot about the risks/benefits of such marketplaces.

What's missing is a solid technological implementation of a distributed, peer-to-peer, trust-less marketplace. It's possible to do it, it's just not that easy.

An even better alternative would be total drug legalization.

Personally, I think that drugs are good for society more than they are bad and most of the "negative" effects of drugs comes from the prohibition itself.

Full legalization would create a true marketplace and the "bad" drugs would be slowly rejected by the market. It would also allow us to openly and professionally deal with the consequences of drug abuse, addiction, etc..

Countries like Portugal have done that (to a more or less acceptable extent) and the results are remarkable.

Combine legal drugs with modern e-commerce technologies + reputation systems and we've practically "solved" the drug problem. Welcome to the Brave New world ;).

[bko]

The logic of drug criminalization is weird if you think about it.

Yes, drugs may be bad for you, but so is prison. So because drugs aren't bad enough for you to want to dissuade you from doing them, the government wants to make a bigger incentive by throwing the user into prison.

Penn Jillette encapsulates this logic pretty well:

> Do we believe, even for a second, that if Obama had been busted for marijuana -- under the laws that he condones -- would his life have been better? If Obama had been caught with the marijuana that he says he uses, and 'maybe a little blow'... if he had been busted under his laws, he would have done hard fcking time. And if he had done time in prison, time in federal prison, time for his 'weed' and 'a little blow,' he would not be President of the United States of America. He would not have gone to his fancy-a* college, he would not have sold books that sold millions and millions of copies and made millions and millions of dollars, he would not have a beautiful, smart wife, he would not have a great job. He would have been in f*cking prison, and it's not a god damn joke. People who smoke marijuana must be set free. It is insane to lock people up. [0]

Its really quite incredible the lack of irony among politicians

[0]http://bigthink.com/think-tank/penn-jillette-obama-is-a-hypo...

[vijayr]

It is not just the politicians - the amount of disgust among the general public for people who use drugs is unbelievable. I understand it is an insanely big problem, nobody wants drug addicts in the society. But it will happen, legalization or not, prison or not. People are going to use drugs anyway. So why not make life easier for everyone by legalizing it, setting up help centers to help those who want to be helped, reduce stress on cops/prison system and so on? By now it is very clear that any number of tough laws on this problem is not going to work - why not try the alternative?

[bko]

The funny thing is that, in my experience, even if you ask active drug users if drugs should be legalized (apart from marijuana), they often say no. People tend to sympathize on the personal level but society makes things so unpersonalized. For instance, if I was at a party and saw someone using cocaine or some other drug in a peaceful manner, I wouldn't call the police or be happy if he was arrested. When I point out the irony that the person is committing a crime that he believes should be a crime, he usually says, oh that person is doing it responsibly, its those other people. It's always "those other" people. Whether you're stocking up on antibiotic or saving prescription strength pain killers for future use, that's fine, even discussed openly in the workplace. But "those other" people can't be trusted with doing so.

[AnthonyMouse]

I wonder what the war on drugs would look like if we took prison out of the equation. So make using drugs the only offense and the penalty is the equivalent of a parking ticket. Selling, buying or possessing drugs would all be perfectly legal (to the extent cigarettes are) save that they provide instant probable cause for a drug test.

So you lose the possibility for the deterrent itself to ruin your life, but you still have a pretty significant social deterrent because use is still formally illegal so use in public space is impractical because the cops will show up and start issuing citations.

[WildUtah]

You'd still have violent drug gangs because dealing would be illegal. They'd need to continue lethal violence because they couldn't go to court to settle contract and credit disputes.

[AnthonyMouse]

Do read again.

[omegaham]

I get legalizing drugs that don't have addiction potential, but drugs like meth and heroin have the effect of placing a large portion of the population under the control of their suppliers.

We found this problem very quickly with legal opioid manufacturers - in the 90s, we had very lax rules on prescription painkillers, and the results were predictable. These companies bribed doctors into prescribing them to as many people as possible, lobbying resulted in a refusal to look at the problem, and now we face the fact that these pharmaceutical companies are effectively legal drug dealers to a large portion of the population. Same thing with overprescribing amphetamines to kids for ADHD.

Predictably, we've clamped down harshly on these drugs, and now addicts are turning to heroin because it's cheaper and easier to get. It's just a massive clusterfuck, and it's all due to the fact that slick-talking marketers basically said, "No, don't worry - it's just medicine. No one's going to get addicted from this. Here's a fantastic vacation package while you think it over!"

Addicts make good customers. They'll pay whatever you want, and they'll be with you for life as long as you make the product easily available to them. There's just way too much money at stake to keep companies from acting in a predatory manner, which is why we ended up with Joe Camel and other ads aimed at kids.

I don't like bringing up the "Won't someone please think of the children" argument because it's usually fallacious, but the fact is that tobacco companies have known for a long time that children are very susceptible to advertising and very likely to sustain long-term addiction if they're hooked early. I'm sure that the same is true for harder drugs than nicotine.

The only real question is "Is that state of affairs preferable to the current serious problems of the War On Drugs?" I think that there should be a middle ground. Decriminalize possession totally, go after dealers. This avoids the typical junkies getting busted and sent to long prison terms for having a dime bag, but it prevents regular business from hooking people by the millions.

All I can say is that if we totally legalize drugs, I'm investing heavily in whoever's marketing heroin. One cubic centimeter cures ten gloomy sentiments and all that.

[bko]

Alcohol has been socially acceptable for so long that we often forget how harmful it is to our society, much more so than other hard drugs [0]

All these problems that you state about overprescription and users turning to unsafe harder drugs is all due to the fact that these drugs are illegal. The same concerns were voiced about alcohol during prohibition. Now no one treats alcohol like a medicine and they understand it is a drug. Alcohol is a "hard drug" by any definition as it causes dependence and can have a very negative impact on your life. It was even more dangerous when it was illegal.

The choice isn't between making drugs legal and having a drug free world. The choice is between making it legal or spending resources throwing those who choose to use drugs in jail.

[0] http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2010/11/drugs_caus...

[marklgr]

> The choice isn't between making drugs legal and having a drug free world. The choice is between making it legal or spending resources throwing those who choose to use drugs in jail.

That's a legitimate way to look at it, but there are other points of view too eg. the choice is also between a rather limited user base and widespread usage once it becomes legal. I guess it could be argued that marijuana is already everywhere, but what about 'stronger' stuff.

[sebak]

1) Do we know if it will be more widespread? Although the stronger stuff is also illegal in the Netherlands, it's very easy to find and I don't think the Netherlands have more drug addicts then another country (no source for this, just my opinion how I know the country).

2) Is it a problem if it's more widespread? Some stronger stuff can be used responsibly (for example MDMA). Just like only a small portion of alcohol users have alcohol problems. You also got stronger stuff like heroin which is very addictive, but then there's still common sense. Whether it's legal or illegal, I can get it very easily where I live. Yet, I don't take it because I know it's not good for me.

[marklgr]

The Netherlands have quite a bit of "drug tourism", with people from across Europe going there to party and/or bring some stuff back home--so small wonder that it's quite easy to find pretty much anything there.

As for whether usage would get more widespread, I believe it's to be expected, since legalization means more resellers, more legit businesses that you are not reluctant to deal with, and a de facto approval from governement that the stuff is clean, so less fear of poisoning.

> Whether it's legal or illegal, I can get it very easily where I live. Yet, I don't take it because I know it's not good for me.

Not everyone got the connections, and not everyone use good judgment. That's the whole point: to what extent can society decide what to authorize and what to forbid.

[Absentinsomniac]

In most places it's much easier to get some heroin than psychedelics, in some places about as easy as getting weed. There are delivery services in major cities. People don't see its ubiquity but from personal experience, it's there.

[ss248]

>link

How can methamphetamine be 3 times more harmful than ecstasy (a.k.a. MDMA a.k.a. 3,4-methylenedioxy-methamphetamine)?

[rwmurrayVT]

MDMA has strikingly different effects on the body than meth.

[zardo]

NaCl is salty. Na will literally set your mouth on fire.

[AndrewUnmuted]

The problem with all this is that there _are_ legitimate medical uses for both of the substances you list. Methamphetamine is a proven and effective treatment for people suffering from severe attention deficits and concentration-related disorders. It's also an effective treatment for people suffering from severe obesity. Opiates are the most effective treatment out there for pain management.

These are legitimate medical concerns that need to be addressed. I'm sure we can agree on that, just as well as we can agree that today's solution doesn't work. The rational course of action is to set policy that doesn't unnecessarily increase the incidence rates of addiction, while also extending our personal liberties to a place where they ought to be. I am in favor of full legalization, because addicts tend to have a problematic history before drug abuse becomes their main challenge. Changing the laws won't change that natural fact. But changing the laws may, as pointed out in another poster's Penn Jilette quote, remove the needless suffering of millions of people throughout the world - perhaps even billions. It would end the cartel violence, the ruthless murdering, the poverty, and the ruined lives that are caused by the War on Drugs every day.

[mgbmtl]

Why give a monopoly on drugs to the black market? Drugs are a public health safety issue. They should be sold by the state, in a controlled way. Sure, black market will continue to exist, but they won't have a monopoly, and we will have more tools to help people consume in a responsible way.

Lots of places in the world ban advertising, control the packaging marketing, control the display of cigarettes in stores, control where you can smoke in public, etc etc. Alcohol is also heavily regulated.

Heck, in Canada, the purchasing and distribution of wine is mostly done by the state. Then, depending on the province, it might be sold by a private or state store, but it's always very regulated. I'm sure heroin producers would have much less options if their only client was the state. (btw: same for medecine, usually purchased by the provincial governments, then sold to pharmacies, hence lower prices)

[exo762]

> What's missing is a solid technological implementation of a distributed, peer-to-peer, trust-less marketplace. It's possible to do it, it's just not that easy.

https://voluntary.net/bitmarkets/

Peer to peer, anonymous, two parties only, game theory and one established fact about human psychology.

Idea is following - if any of parties can't possibly gain anything from fraud in the long run, there will be no fraud. To achieve that, buyer freezes two prices of the item, seller freezes one price of the item. Money is frozen atomically, and is defrosted atomically. Money is freed only if both parties are happy. Some studies indicate that people have very strong feelings about justice IF they are dealing with strangers. This should cause strong revulsion of any unjust solution (e.g. buyer caving in just to unfreeze some of frozen money). To prevent such blackmail and other forms of psychological manipulation, both parties are anonymous by default and can't communicate using this software.

Published on MIT license.

[sanswork]

Say you buy a new xbox off me at an agreed price of $500. You lock up $1000 I lock up $500 and send you a used Xbox only worth $250. You believe most people will eat the $500 loss?

I don't believe that for a second and that's even ignoring the fact you need everyone to have double the amount of anything they want to transact. A seller needs enough cash to cover the cost of all their stock and buyers will need enough money to buy everything they want twice.

[exo762]

This behaviour is very risky for fraudster. Some buyers will suck up the loss and free the money. Others will say "fuck this guy" and will not free money.

What are the chances what fraudster will make money out of this?

As for your second point - this indeed will prevent large percentage of population from participation as buyers (basically everyone without savings). As for sellers - irrelevant. We are talking about markets that can benefit from security and anonymity. Higher cost of doing business is implied, but in this case its only a time-cost of money (which is all time low today).

I think 2 party escrow is a viable alternative to 3d party escrow because it should be harder to game.

[sanswork]

But not many. Almost everyone will take the loss because the cost of saying screw you is double the cost of the product itself. They could cut their losses get half back and buy the product elsewhere and they'd have the same amount of money but the full product.

I remember pointing this out about every month or so in 2014 when it seemed everyone and their dog were posting this method of escrow.

[stevedekorte]

The results of the Ultimatum game psychology experiments suggests almost everyone will act punitively. See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimatum_game

And we only need 51% to act punitively to ensure all fraudsters go bankrupt.

[exo762]

Do you see a better way of doing distributed (maybe anonymous) markets? I don't have much faith in OpenBazaar since their reliance on trusted 3rd parties mean that they are wide open to collusion between party and arbiter.

[sanswork]

No but that doesn't make this a good way or a safe way.

I don't have much faith in openbazaar either because they offer nothing more than a shopping cart software would get you but require a software download to use.

[fas9]

Darknet Markets dead? Bitcoin dying?

I don't follow the news but the demand for bitcoin is tremendous in relation to darknet markets. I am not involved but I know people getting rich on all sides and from my perspective the whole community is thriving.

I know people who are barely computer literate ordering stuff from the DNMs. A 19 year old model said to me recently, "everyone gets drugs off the darknet."

Of course, the fragmentation is there and if AlphaBay goes down that is rather bad but the reality is the transactions have just went private, one-on-one, etc. And OpenBazaar is coming, the beta looks awesome. There is also a Silk Road 4 and while I wouldn't recommend it, I know people who have used it successfully.

And this whole article seems wrong, it even says:

>All of that online turmoil hasn’t necessarily sent the dark web’s buyers back to street dealers, says Nicolas Christin, a computer science researcher at Carnegie Mellon who’s published some of the most thorough measurements of the dark net markets. He says that the overall revenue of the anonymous online drug trade has hovered around $100 million a year regardless of repeated scams or law enforcement takedowns. But that sales figure has plateaued after years of fast growth, he says, perhaps in part because dark web drug buyers aren’t as happy or confident as they once were.

[sanswork]

I can't comment on the rest of your post because I have no interest in DNMs but openbazaar won't work for drug deals since it doesn't work over Tor and the developers have no plans to change it so it can.

[hackercomplex]

I have no personal experience but just from reading the news my feeling is that it's reached the point where both sides just kind of want to see the issue "go away" in the media.

The people operating on these markets certainly don't want the attention, and the people who are fighting the drug war don't want the issue raised because the numbers don't look great. Everyone just seems to want it to disappear off the radar....and so it is...

[pjc50]

It's not possible to have a popular counter-culture. To be a counterculture requires a certain amount of separation, growth out of the public spotlight. Either the culture goes mainstream (with all the downsides of that) or it has the spotlight turned on it, bringing in people who don't share the original ideals and driving out those who do.

The US drug war landscape is changing. Cannabis is now legal in several states; others are looking at it. It's going to be like equal marriage. Once the first few states have done it and not imploded, it becomes hard to maintain the rationale elsewhere. I reckon it'll be legal in >25 states in a decade and federally in 2-3 decades.

[chill1]

> "What's missing is a solid technological implementation of a distributed, peer-to-peer, trust-less marketplace. It's possible to do it, it's just not that easy."

Have you taken a look at OpenBazaar[1][2]?

[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/OpenBazaar/

[2] https://github.com/openbazaar

[codeshaman]

I know about it, but I've also seen somewhere that they kind of distanced themselves from the "dark market" idea when they got funded by Union Square Ventures and Andreesseen Horowitz among others.

It might be the solution, I haven't checked it out yet.

[sanswork]

It doesn't work on Tor and the developers have no interest in making it work.

[Cyph0n]

Looks like its open source, so interested parties will be able to implement Tor support.

[sanswork]

It does but the developers think it would be hard and you'd have to audit the code for information leak points. You might as well just write a replacement from the ground up with that in mind.

[marincounty]

I would like to see most drugs legalized too, but with regulations. I would like to see all drugs that people are on long term legalized. Drugs that regulate high blood pressure, or blood sugars should be over the counter.

Basically maintance drugs--drugs you have been on for more than say four years shouldn't require an office visit for a prescription.

Too many physicians essentially hold patients hostage--all for a few extra bucks. I imagine at least 50 percent of the people reading this are on a drug long term that requires a physician, and office visit to refill it? We go to that needless office visit because we have too. We all sit in that chair--thinking, if you're not looking at my blood work, "Why am I here?"

And no---antibiotics, strong opiates, and methamphetamine type drugs should always require a physicians signature.

That said drugs like bupenorpine should be over the counter. This one drug could help a lot of addicts--now. It's almost impossible to overdose on.

(As to marijuana--if you honestly feel it makes you feel/function better in this crazy world, why shouldn't you be able to use it. I'm ambivalent on cocaine/speed. I don't feel opiates should be made easily available. They are just to addictive.)

[flycaliguy]

I would be careful to be so confident in declaring the end of bitcoin, especially if it's based on yesterday's article on the matter.

Unless you are trying to drive prices down before a big China event...