zlacker

>>Ozarki+(OP)
Absolute no brainer, he should be celebrated. Countless lives were saved via the harm reduction effect of a peer reviewed, reputation based platform. Of course if we had less draconian drug policy, it wouldn't be necessary but here we are.

>>l0ng1n+61
> Countless lives were saved via the harm reduction effect of a peer reviewed, reputation based platform.

The basic immorality/pointlessness of the war on drugs aside, I don't know how you can assert this: it's not like there's a chain of provenance, and there's no particular guarantee that whatever grade of pure drugs was sold on Silk Road is the same purity that ended up in peoples' bodies.

My understanding of the Silk Road case is that, at its peak, it was servicing a significant portion of the international drug market. The dimensions of that market include adulteration; Silk Road almost certainly didn't change that.

>>woodru+y3
No no no, he is right. Its safe because if you receive a bad batch of drugs you can leave a negative review on the page of the drug cartel that has your name and address, no chance of that having any repercussions for you at all.

>>Devast+35
I haven't seen anything to suggest that anyone was harmed for leaving a bad review.

>>l0ng1n+q6
Do you know many people who'd be willing to risk their life to give the Sinaloa cartel a bad yelp review?

>>Devast+07
Sinaola cartel sells lsd, dmt and mushrooms in personal quantities?

>>tayo42+d9
As far as I remember, those weren't the only drugs sold there, nor was there any rule enforced regarding "personal quantities".

Not that it matters, as it was an illustrative example.