Home » Articles » Op-Ed: Silk Road as harm reduction? Please…
Click Here To Hide Tor

Op-Ed: Silk Road as harm reduction? Please…

As we’re all well and truly aware, the Ulbricht defense stratagem of ‘it wasn’t me, here are some other DPR options’ failed dismally – it is a matter of fact, legally speaking, that Ross William Ulbricht was DPR, and as such, ran the original Silk Road. Now, we’re on to the sentencing part of the equation, and it seems the door to an appeal against conviction is being slammed shut by the defense’s plea in mitigation that Silk Road make drug use safer.

Let me say this from the outset – I am a proponent of harm reduction. Drug use is like sex. Regardless of what prohibitions or social stigmas we attempt to impose, we all know its going to happen, regardless of whether or not school, our religious leaders, or anyone else, told us it was bad. Rather than walk into the situation blindly, we’re all better off being educated.

Additionally, I’m the first to admit its been an interesting saga, the whole Silk Road trial, and that the defense was on to some very good material in the early days. Simply put, the judge did not go the defense’s way – such is the manner in which trials proceed.

But this story, that Silk Road actively sought to reduce the harm of the drug use it facilitated by providing a dealer to user model which broke down international boundaries and permitted wholesalers access to retail clients, is just too much for me to stomach. Your mileage may vary on accepting this argument, but I don’t doubt that the defense is pulling out all the stops, considering that Ulbricht is looking at 30 to life. There is talk of the $500 a week Ulbricht offered to the renowned ‘DoctorX’, Dr Fernando Caudevilla – if that $500 a week is the extent of the active harm reduction program budget that Ulbricht was pushing, it would rank not even a single percentage point of the tax free, personal profits he was enjoying.

There are two prongs to the defense counsel Josh Dratel’s argument that Silk Road helped reduce harm – the implementation of a strict, eBay-esque feedback system helped minimize, and removal of drug transactions from the risk street level violence.

On the issue of feedback making drug use safer, does anyone really regard eBay’s feedback system as being a truly effective consumer protection mechanism? For any positives you might garner, specifically, that sellers offering bunk junk would be out of the game quickly, are similarly countered by the synergistic effect which glowing feedback likely had with increasing sales; positive feedback increased sales, and sales of drugs to satisfied users increased positive feedback. That’s to say nothing of those who unscrupulously sought to influence the feedback system through shill accounts, because hey, who could imagine wholesale drug dealers being an unethical bunch?

True enough, chances of a buyer getting stuck up with a switchblade certainly did fall when buying online, that much cannot be rebutted – but it gave rise to the additional criminal issue of abusing the mail system. And keep in mind that the Government is unlikely to look favorably on the removal of one arguably intrinsic aspect of drug trafficking, specifically street level violence, when the underlying trafficking remains, in addition to further criminality in transportation of the drugs themselves. What I mean to say here, is that in real terms, yes, it did help mitigate transaction violence – but the overall criminality involved is going to win the day.

For the good SR may’ve done, there’s equal measures of downside. Normal, workaday stiffs who wanted to dally with something naughty found themselves equipped to become small time drug importers, risking severe penalties which could have impacted upon their livelihood – and more than a few such people have gone on to become street level ‘connects’ to their local associates, which will bring with it that risk of street level or local violence which ‘direct to end user’ vending arguably countered. If you happened to live somewhere having heard tell via pop culture references or old ware stories of bygone days, of some hard to find drug to which you otherwise had no access, be it PCP, Flunitrazepam or hashish, SR gave you the capacity to acquire it. All the harm reduction arguments in the world are nullified if you couldn’t cause the harm in the first place owing to a complete lack of access.

At least one expert, Tim Bingham of the non profit Irish Needle Exchange Forum, said in a paper that the SR forums “appeared to act as an information mechanism for the promotion of safer and more acceptable or responsible forms of recreational drug use” – if it did so, it was a secondary, and unintended, consequence of the forum’s primary goal of supporting sales activity on the SR market. I wonder if Bingham’s ever bothered to write about the harm reduction works of www.bluelight.org, which has been around for many, many years as a forum geared specifically to harm reduction, or whether this was a really easy grab for publicity?

There are a great many things SR was – it blazed trails in making illicit commerce both accessible to the man on the street and the wholesale audience, it gave BTC an enormous push into the public’s consciousness, and it created for LE a whole new frontier of policing which it is a long way behind drawing even with at the time of writing. But harm it minimized was, in practical terms, offset by opportunities it offered to access drugs on a scale that hadn’t been seen previously, and direct activity to promote a harm reduction agenda was highly limited; what harm was reduced was an unintended consequence.

At the end of the day, regardless of the good it may’ve done, the sentencing judge is unlikely to be swayed by what seems to be a case of retrospective continuity on the part of the defense, attempting to re-write the goals and intentions of the original Silk Road for the benefit of Ulbricht, regardless of any positives it may actually have achieved.

11 comments

  1. Iamenlightened

    Thank you for that very eductational piece, Captain War On Drugs. Here I thought I could potentially purchase drugs in a safer, more enlightened fashion in this digital age. I can see now my erroneous thinking. Drugs are bad. Simply stated: drugs are bad. The summary of your article: drugs are bad. Now I know, you guessed it, drugs are bad. What was I thinking ?

    • Allen Hoffmann, JD

      Pardon me, Sergeant Sarcasm, but this article was aimed at why Ulbricht’s teeam’s attempt at running this “HR was something SR did in a proactive manner” defense was a joke – not an indictment on drug use (do you think I write material like this because I have no interest?) or the means by which they’re brought to market.

      • This sure sounds like an indictment on drug use via silk road :

        For the good SR may’ve done, there’s equal measures of downside. Normal, workaday stiffs who wanted to dally with something naughty found themselves equipped to become small time drug importers, risking severe penalties which could have impacted upon their livelihood – and more than a few such people have gone on to become street level ‘connects’ to their local associates, which will bring with it that risk of street level or local violence which ‘direct to end user’ vending arguably countered. If you happened to live somewhere having heard tell via pop culture references or old ware stories of bygone days, of some hard to find drug to which you otherwise had no access, be it PCP, Flunitrazepam or hashish, SR gave you the capacity to acquire it. All the harm reduction arguments in the world are nullified if you couldn’t cause the harm in the first place owing to a complete lack of access.”

        That is a pathetic argument. You are saying that everyday working stiffs that would normally continue their workaday life will / did become midlevel drug dealers beacause of silkroad. That’s some funny stuff there.
        You also argue that drugs normally unattainable would be pursued by those fatally curious in mind altering substances. Lets review the typical drugs available by convential purchasing methods: Cocaine / crack, methamphetamine, heroin, weed and a plethota of pain pills / sedatives. Now lets say Joe decides he might like to try something more exotic of bygone days ( as you put it ). This could be something like opium. History clearly shows that during the 2 millenia or so opium was used that consequential health problems paled in comparison to the use of heroin or even strong pain meds. There are many other similar examples that could be made to counter your weak argument

    • Right. Like so many others, the author seems to think the harm comes from drugs, when in fact the vast majority of harm is a direct result of prohibition. By bringing at least some regulation, or accountability, to an unregulated market, harm was being reduced. Whether intentional, or not, it’s unlikely to help him in court, as almost any judge will have the same attitude as the author, i.e., drugs are bad.

  2. Clark W Griswald

    The only valid point you’re making from where I’m standing, is that ‘SR = harm reduction’ is that it’s a lame, grasping at straws defense. I have little doubt that harm minimisation was one (of many) of the positive attributes of SR and DPR, but not for one second am I going to suggest that it was never on DPR’s radar. How ‘good’ or ‘bad’ SR was is almost completely based on an individuals biases when it comes to the notions of law and freedom. If you’re facing trial, all that really matters are rules of law – not conceptual ideas of freedom.

    Personally though, it’s been clear for decades now that ‘the war on drugs’ hasn’t worked (as you rightly point out), so legality aside, I feel that SR and TOR marketplaces have done more good than harm.

    • You mistake an analysis of tactics and their likelihood of success in the scheme of the sentencing regime for an attack on the underlying ethos of SR.

      I do not for a moment suggest that some harm was minimized or mititgated by SR. However, looking at the efforts made as regards proportionality of the HR work done in the context of the wider organization, from the perspective of someone who knows how the legal system functions (namely, me), its not going to get him far in the eyes of the sentencing judge. From a sentencing standpoint, the only biases which will matter at that point are those of the judge. As is clear from my write up, I suspect its not going to go his way.

  3. Commander Peekensnau

    Normal, workaday stiffs who wanted to dally with something naughty found themselves equipped to become small time drug importers, risking severe penalties which could have impacted upon their livelihood

    What about this?

    * I tell you that if you will blink your eyes I will kill your mother
    * You blink your eyes because nature
    * I kill your mother

    Are you guilty because you blinked your eyes and thus set in motion the sequence which got your mother killed or am I guilty because I actually kill your mother? Now apply this logic consistently and you will see where you made a mistake.

  4. An interesting read but ultimately it was this part that i found myself agreeing with the most..

    “appeared to act as an information mechanism for the promotion of safer and more acceptable or responsible forms of recreational drug use” – if it did so, it was a secondary, and unintended, consequence of the forum’s primary goal of supporting sales activity on the SR market.

    The harm reduction argument was born out of a side-effect of silk road rather than because of it. It [Silk Road] never set out with that as an aim and just found it a handy argument that fell on it’s lap to wheel out when needed but never ever making it a site priority. The $500 p/w is all the proof you need that is was in no way taken serious or that DPR had some level of morality above those of a dealer.

    I’m sorry but if SR and DPR wanted to use this as a defence he should have thought much more about the power to do good he could have done with this significant approach from day one. It all seems rather hollow and after the fact now.

    • urashillmeister

      Yes of course it is a moot point now. Ross was targeted from the getgo to be made into an example. He had no chance at any point regardless of the defenses’ argument. The outcome was inevitable.

      I agree that Ross was motivated by money. That is why he created SR. His libertarian views and claims of harm reduction were just asides and byproducts.

      Though it may have been inadvertent he did create a system of harm reduction. That same harm reduction would increases exponentially if drugs were decriminalized.

  5. Something like a billion dollars worth of drugs were sold on SR, 6 people died. Out of a billion dollers on the street how many people would be dead. I don’t know where to find those numbers but it would be in the 100’s to 1000’s. Why are people so stupid?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

Captcha: *