Reposted from Lim's thread, perhaps I'm becoming guilty of hubris because it appeals partly to my self interest, but I think this is a good idea and want a broader selection of people to analyze and critique it.--If markets like SR are to be regulated in any semi-legal/decriminalized government approved fashion in the distant future, it is imperative that some mechanism, much like Capcha for distinguishing between person/machine, is developed as a age restriction.My own view is, if we're setting somewhat arbitrary limits, that it is 15+ for MDMA and weed, 18+ for opiates. The problem then becomes the same one that buggers our governments, which is that you're making an allure for hard drugs by designating them as "18+", suddenly h is cool and MDMA is drool. Not exactly the intention. But its results that count, not intentions. The government also sometimes uses price controls with alcohol in the UK for example such that usually only adults can purchase items. This is also severely retarded, you penalize everybody for the sake of a minority. I think it's more effective if enforced properly, but still completely retarded from a moral point of view.However, there is a definitive difference between a human and a computer, not so much between an older human and a younger one. Therein lies the crux of the problem practically.I also do not believe it's all about 'age'. Some people can be in their 30s or 40s or older, and still act immature. This has been frequently noted...==>> What we really want, is a way then, to distinguish responsible SR users from non-responsible ones in a rigorous manner.We can stipulate a "limit" system, but what will naturally occur is that it will be a failure because it doesn't address the problem. Essentially, when you get right down to it, everybody wants a distinction between "mature" and "moron", because if preventing somebody using a drug in the wrong way or taking too much of it is the goal here, then the Mature/Moron criteria is clearly the one you want to be using. It is simply a better approximation to reality than using age restrictions, which are altogether too crude.We don't need to emulate the government, because they kind of cocked it up already. We can do it better than they can.--I have a solution, which is that you give me money. :DOnly joking slightly, but I think this would be highly effective. Let me explain.When a vendor discovers some half illiterate punk (punk <3) trying to nab some product, he becomes suspicious about the maturity of the said punk, as we can see from Lim's consternation.What happens, is that you say to this punk. "You can buy from me". "No problem. I can't prevent you, this is an anonymous network, you could always register with a new alt."However!"First you must acquire this package from pine". says the wise and noble vendor. "What package" says the punk?"Well it is simple, I sell MDMA, so you must acquire an MDMA support package from pine (and her competition) for *your first buy*" says the vendor.This MDMA support package is a standard package signed off on by DPR. It contains two simple things.1. A vial of MDMA testing reagent to ensure it is actually MDMA you're ingesting.2. A informative letter explaining the correct dosage for males/female per kg in a simple and easily understood manner. Also included would be the half-life and directions on "best practices".3. An identity number that Pine reports back to the vendor so they know they can stop putting the newb's order on hold.Meanwhile, while they're waiting for product, they will be excited about their first SR buy, and will almost certainly read the letter and example the instructions for the vial as a result. They have nothing to lose, and neither do we, apart from a small quantity of money.--What do you think?It is entirely voluntary. No vendor is forced to do this. You simply join "Pine's Responsible Drug Consumption League" and take an oath where you (with complete discretion) decide whether or not to send a package outright, or whether to demand that the consumer acquire a "care package" from pine firstly. Perhaps on a first buy for opiates this ought to be mandatory.THAT, I think, is what we want the newspapers to report on us. We find the irresponsible newbs (handily capturing both the morons in the adult market as well as a majority of immature kids).Alternatively, the payment stategy would be that the care packages are FREE, but that DPR buys them on these newb's behalf from myself.I think this is a good idea. Not only because I make money, but also from an ethical/moral/commercial point of view.There is only one serious problem I can think of really. That is that I would be receiving the addresses of many SR newbs, so you would have to trust me doubly in comparison to a normal vendor. But... with competition that would arise naturally, a selection of trusted or random people could be preselected by DPR and that problem is solved.<insert your thoughts into my thought experiment here>