tough piece of the puzzle to address in these questions is in clarifying the distinctions between classes of crimes - and if we're truly looking to evolve maturely as a society, defining new boundaries and borders defining exactly what should and shouldn't be deemed a crime within man's fictitious courts of "law" - versus natural law...
for starters, the fundamental question: who gave the "Law Society" the right to dictate what an individual can and cannot put into his/her own body?
of course, the case I'm getting to here is that of drug use. men in funny wigs who've seized some power in societal institutions may declare whatever the fuck they want as rule of the land - but there is a fundamental violation of Natural Law when attempting to intervene with man inherent's right to do what he chooses with his own body - including using a variety of substances for his own desired purposes. no doubt, it's a tricky situation with a complex web of reasoning, logic, and traps that have sustained a status quo allowing a "government" to put a person who has caused no harm to another in a cage for doing what they see is in their best interest. nonetheless, matters like these are important in addressing the broader questions you've posed effectively...
as such - many might argue against efforts to intervene in dark web activity to prosecute individuals who have not done others harm - i.e. acquired drugs, albeit they might be illegal, for their personal consumption.
of course, cases of pedophilia or acquiring goods to be used in the physical violence against others is a very different case. human trafficking of sex workers, arms dealings resulting in deaths, etc are a very different degree of "crime" - and consequently, ought to be addressed differently - if a responsible approach to complex problem solving embodying wisdom and having the benefit of society at it's core values is the matter.
anyways, that's my 2 cents...