title: Safer scoring? Cryptomarkets, social supply and drug market violence.
abstract: Cryptomarkets are digital platforms that use anonymising software (e.g. Tor) and cryptocurrencies (e.g. Bitcoin) to facilitate trade of goods and services, most notably illicit drugs. Cryptomarkets may reduce systemic violence compared with in-person drug trading because no face-to-face contact is required and disputes can be resolved through a neutral third party. In this paper, we describe the purchasing behaviour of cryptomarket users and then compare the self-reported experiences of threats, violence and other drug-market concerns when obtaining drugs from cryptomarkets with obtaining drugs through friends, known dealers and strangers.
  
  
  
  The Global Drug Survey was completed in late 2014 by a self-selected sample who reported accessing drugs through cryptomarkets in the last 12 months (N=3794).
  
  
  
  Their median age was 22 years and 82% were male. The drug types most commonly obtained through cryptomarkets were MDMA/Ecstasy (55%), cannabis (43%) and LSD (35%). Cryptomarket users reported using a median of 2 sources in addition to cryptomarkets to access drugs, the most common being in-person friendships (74%), in-person dealers (57%) and open markets/strangers (26%). When asked to nominate the main source they would use if cryptomarkets were unavailable, 49% nominated friends, 34% known dealers and 4% strangers. 'Threats to personal safety' (3%) and 'experiencing physical violence' (1%) were less often reported when using cryptomarkets compared with sourcing through friends (14%; 6%), known dealers (24%; 10%) or strangers (35%; 15%). Concerns about drug impurities and law enforcement were reported more often when using the alternative source, while loss of money, waiting too long and not receiving the product were more often reported when using cryptomarkets.
  
  
  
  Cryptomarkets are associated with substantially less threats and violence than alternative market types used by cryptomarket customers, even though a large majority of these alternatives were closed networks where violence should be relatively less common.
authors.affiliation: Drug Policy Modelling Program, National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, UNSW Australia, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia; National Drug Research Institute, Faculty of Health Sciences, Curtin University, GPO Box U1987, Perth, WA 6845, Australia; Centre of Population Health, Burnet Institute, 85 Commercial Road, Melbourne, Vic 3004, Australia. Electronic address: m.barratt@unsw.edu.au.
authors.forename: Monica J
authors.initials: MJ
authors.lastname: Barratt
authors.affiliation: Institute for Social Science Research, University of Queensland, St Lucia, Qld 4072, Australia; ARC Centre of Excellence for Children and Families over the Life Course, Institute for Social Science Research, The University of Queensland, Australia.
authors.forename: Jason A
authors.initials: JA
authors.lastname: Ferris
authors.affiliation: South London and Maudsley NHS Trust, London, UK; Addictions Clinical Academic Group, King's College London, Maudsley Hospital, London, UK; Global Drug Survey Ltd, London, UK.
authors.forename: Adam R
authors.initials: AR
authors.lastname: Winstock
mesh_terms: D003132:Commerce / Q000191:economics / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D064423:Drug Trafficking / Q000191:economics / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D013287:Illicit Drugs / Q000191:economics / Q000600:supply & distribution*; D020407:Internet; D008297:Male; D012984:Software; D011795:Surveys and Questionnaires; D014754:Violence / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D055815:Young Adult
chemical_list: D013287:Illicit Drugs
keywords: Cryptomarkets; Dark web; Drug markets; E-commerce; Social supply; Violence