I fully understand your points, and they're very valid. Sensationalism sells more newspapers / gets an article more views - that's an unfortunate fact.However, we may very well have the opportunity now to slide a little bit of truth in with the sensationalism. Perhaps among the "kids can buy drugs anonymously" we might get "however, the recent articles about guns and weaponry being rampant on the Silk Road are far from true. In a recent poll conducted by this journalist, X amount of Silk Road's users opposed the sale of guns, and the general sentiment on the Silk Road forums is that even in an agarian oriented market, there must still be restrictions - whether to keep under the radar, or for users personal reasons, there is a 'lest it harm none' aspect to the operations in this free market. It's a market that takes drug sellers and drug users off the streets - reducing drug crime and deaths by taking drug gangs and local 'territory disputes' out of the equation, and freeing up law enforcement officers for more serious matters such as solving rapes and murders.It begs the question: is the Silk Road really such a terrible thing, or is it something that we need to open up to and embrace the principles of? Do your research, dear reader, and come to your OWN conclusion!"Journalists: feel free to use the above - it's already half sensationalised for you! :PTravellingWithoutMoving, you have a point, but Rome wasn't built in a day, and we have to start somewhere!Then again, maybe I'm just a whack-job idealist. :P- grahamgreene