zlacker

So then, you don't believe that harm reduction doesn't justify illegal activity, you just think what Silk Road specifically did doesn't qualify as "harm reduction"?

That's fine; I disagree, but I'm not interested in litigating it here. But your original parent actually was arguing along those lines, cf. "rat poison" et cetera, so perhaps you'd like to retroactively not reject that as "not a reasonable argument".

>>Cushma+(OP)
In the original, "not a reasonable argument" was specific to this instance. I try to avoid generalizations as one can almost always manage to find a corner case exception.