Also, did you just forget we were (and we are) in a pandemic that started a year ago, forcing almost every person in lockdown?
What do you think was the mode of choice for drug dealers to launder their money through? I'll give you a hint, it is certainly not cash.
I guess you never buy drugs IRL, if you really want a source for "drug dealers only take cash". What's next, wanting a source for "water is wet"?
> Also, did you just forget we were (and we are) in a pandemic that started a year ago, forcing almost every person in lockdown?
Guess who stayed open the entire time? The drug dealers. They were excluded from lockdowns due to ostensibly being essential businesses who sold "medicine". And guess what, the entire time they have only accepted cash.
So the source is you then? If so, that is an anecdote and that isn't a reputable source, try again.
> The illegal drug dealers only took cash, and now that buying drugs is legal, the legal dealers only take cash too. They have an ATM in their shop, but that's because they only take cash.
So you are saying that cryptocurrencies was never an option for these people at all? If it was legal bank transfer or credit cards would be just fine.
Would be nice if you provide sources for your claims to these.
> Guess who stayed open the entire time? The drug dealers. They were excluded from lockdowns due to ostensibly being essential businesses who sold "medicine". And guess what, the entire time they have only accepted cash.
Again, do you have any reputable sources for these claims?
Burden is on you to provide proof.
Maybe a few zoomer ones accept Venmo, but that is functionally equivalent.
What is your definition of a reputable source then?
You have four different people saying the same thing and still you ask for a 'source'.
Don't be surprised when no-one wants to take you up on inane requests.
You clearly won't believe that most drug transactions are done in cash unless you see incontrovertible evidence. That's fine. But no-one cares, so I don't know why you expect demands for a source to be met.
If this was an even remotely controversial or decisive topic, it's worth providing sources, because they convince not only the person demanding it, but also anyone reading. But in this case, it's such a well-known and obvious fact that there's no such benefit.
You can ask for sources for "the sky is blue" all you want, but I'm happy to just stick my head out the window and go "yep, I'm pretty sure". I'm not too fussed if you still don't believe me.
All I'm just asking for clear evidence to a claim, like someone asked me for evidence of a claim I made, I provided a source and evidence. Not hard, seems you and others have an issue with it.
> You clearly won't believe that most drug transactions are done in cash unless you see incontrovertible evidence. That's fine. But no-one cares, so I don't know why you expect demands for a source to be met.
Do you expect me or anyone else to believe a random person like you making a bold claim at first glance?
So unless you have a source to a bold claim, I can dismiss it.
> But in this case, it's such a well-known and obvious fact that there's no such benefit.
Then the refutation should be quick and easy right? Again, I see none so far.
Two weeks after we get Federal legalization, someone's going to offer a rewards Visa with 4.20x points for cannabis purchases. You heard it here first.