What if there was a market that forced vendors to allocate 1% of proceeds to sending drugs to random addresses or even known felons?

Seems to me like this would bolster plausible deniability for all. I'd pay a little more this.

To enforce this policy, the site could provide the addresses directly to the vendor. Some could be actual recipients to verify the vendor is fulfilling their obligation. Some addresses could be targeted repeatedly to establish what appears like a real pattern of ordering illegal substances.

It would be hilarious if you were on parole for drug dealing and kept getting 1/4 kilos in the mail. Eventually, you'd be able to prove you're not responsible, and it would be a story for the news.


Comments


[16 Points] 100x100ug:

I would not use that market.


[7 Points] DarkskinJesus:

It would not be hilarious if you were on parole for drug dealing and you received drugs In the mail. Actually that would be terrifying


[5 Points] None:

[deleted]


[3 Points] EasyAccess28:

you gotta be fucking kidding me


[2 Points] None:

Just send random packs of meth to the White House....bahahahaha!!!!!!


[1 Points] pagonsMC:

u use meth? cause this is on u/tweeker timmy's level. i can see this working as long as someone will give drugs away for free.


[1 Points] niggerplease2:

This isn't a terrible idea.

It would only make any sense for this system to use vendors without their knowledge, or may they become aware of the scheme and boycott it or in some way affect the outcome.

When picking potential targets such as "known felons" it would seem ideal to use low value victims like pedophiles, bank robbers, and Comcast employees.

it would be ideal for the drugs to be cut to a minimal purity to ensure the maximum weight. At least in the USA the charges for possession are based upon weight and not purity, and as a result it would be possible to achieve maximum charges with minimal investment. This tactic would seem to contradict the former method of avoiding vendor opposition, as it would require the vendors direct involvement of sending cutcutcut drugs.


[1 Points] BarryHash:

You want vendors to agree to hand over 1% of packages to LE, I suppose a vendor who wanted to go to jail might agree


[1 Points] chefjoesb:

Stupidest idea and post of the year, congrats!


[1 Points] None:

Smh just leave man...


[1 Points] d3emSt3rz:

What a Waste of your life writing this garbage was. So you want ppl to go to jail more often than they already do.

You underestimate what would happen on all levels of gov't if this were to start being all over the news. The Gov't would love this though imo it'd give them a great reason to keep fueling the "War On Drugs Fire"


[1 Points] None:

It would be hilarious if you were on parole for drug dealing and kept getting 1/4 kilos in the mail. Eventually, you'd be able to prove you're not responsible, and it would be a story for the news.

I know! that would be absolutely HILARIOUS right? GTFOH


[1 Points] 1Snowball1:

If Anonymous announce that they take responsibility for sending all drugs found in the mail.

What happens in a case like this?


[1 Points] drugs_4_sale:

This comment has been overwritten by an open source script to protect this user's privacy. It was created to help protect users from doxing, stalking, and harassment.

If you would also like to protect yourself, add the Chrome extension TamperMonkey, or the Firefox extension GreaseMonkey and add this open source script.

Then simply click on your username on Reddit, go to the comments tab, scroll down as far as possibe (hint:use RES), and hit the new OVERWRITE button at the top.

Also, please consider using Voat.co as an alternative to Reddit as Voat does not censor political content.


[1 Points] None:

Plausible deniability cannot be enforced on the scale you are suggesting. Plausible deniability comes down to each individual, mainly through practicing good OPSEC, keeping a clean house and keeping their fucking mouth shut.