Earlier quoted context omitted.
> > Two wrongs do not make a right. > How is that different than karma? Because the United States is not, nor has ever been, a part of the British Empire. Karma[0]: the force generated by a person's actions held in Hinduism and Buddhism to perpetuate transmigration and in its ethical consequences to determine the nature of the person's next existence Even when extending the definition from "a person" to "a country",…
> the United States is not, nor has ever been, a part of the British Empire. The United States, shortly before calling itself the United Colonies, and shortly before that calling itself the Continental Association was formed as a group of colonies in British North America with common grievances against the government in London that it initially directed to the King within, and backed by an embargo against much of the…
Chinese Businesses Fueling the Fentanyl Epidemic Receive Millions in Crypto
71–80 of 106 posts
Re: Chinese Businesses Fueling the Fentanyl Epidemic Receive Millions in Crypto
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
United States did partake in the Opium trade in China, even though they were well aware of the harm, and profited from the wars the British and French fought. Drawing a distinction that the US is completely seperate from the British Empire is pretty dishonest. If you mean the "state" sure, by definition, but it's culture, origin, people, primary (though not official) language all came from the British empire.
> United States did partake in the Opium trade in China, even though they were well aware of the harm, and profited from the wars the British and French fought. True, there were US merchants which participated in supplying opium to China. Sometimes representing themselves, sometimes as proxies for British concerns. Also, an argument can be made that the East India Company operated under the influence, if not control,…
Re: Chinese Businesses Fueling the Fentanyl Epidemic Receive Millions in Crypto
#73This is a phenomenal showcase for the utter failure of the war on drugs. Regulate it, tax it, ensure folks can safely use, and help them stop using when they're ready.
This advice might have been true for pot or cocaine or even heroin, but is demonstrably untrue for Fentanyl. It's simply too strong. Once you're on it, you don't want help, or a life — you want Fentanyl. I'm sorry, but the rules have changed, and policy needs to adapt.
De-regulation has very little to do with the drug users themselves or their harm to society, and everything to do with destroying the economy that those drug users support. The cartels are beyond regulation, but the Sacklers could be put in court. That's a pretty big difference.
If fentanyl is a life sentence in the way you say it is, the cost to society is less if we (ethically) let people kill themselves with regulated fentanyl usage in supervised zones rather than unethically in the streets with drugs of questionable purity purchased through questionable money.
If those people are desperate enough to commit crimes to pay for their mental escapism, then giving them their fentanyl without the crime, while ethically complicated, could have better outcomes for society.
Having pro America institutions (health care) interfacing with people is going to have better outcomes than anti-American (drug cartels and foreign powers) institutions interfacing with people.
Have you ever seen a needle on your sidewalk, in the park your kids play in? Have you ever seen people use dirty needles in front of you? Prohibition doesn't work in America. You can't just make it illegal to leave a needle in a park and expect needles to disappear. Making it easier to do a less bad thing is a different kind of policy than paying more for enforcement (in the form of more taxes in order to pay for more police officers).
Having freedom means being able to make the wrong choice. Keeping freedom is about making responsible choices. If you believe in freedom, then you have to figure out how to help people make responsible choices and have a plan for people making the wrong one.
Monopolizing the supply chain of drugs allows you to dis-empower and destroy cartels as well as offers a "hook" (in the programming sense) to be able to influence the path of those affected.
So you're right that "tax and regulate" makes sense for weed and not fentanyl, but I also don't think you see that there are other forces at work in terms of power. If america is the supplier, america has power. If cartels are the supplier, the cartels have power. If China is the Supplier, then China has power.
If China has that power they can use it to foment misery. If America has that power, they can use it to mitigate the problem.
Re: Chinese Businesses Fueling the Fentanyl Epidemic Receive Millions in Crypto
#74Earlier quoted context omitted.
United States did partake in the Opium trade in China, even though they were well aware of the harm, and profited from the wars the British and French fought. Drawing a distinction that the US is completely seperate from the British Empire is pretty dishonest. If you mean the "state" sure, by definition, but it's culture, origin, people, primary (though not official) language all came from the British empire.
Aren't Americans of German descent the largest group in the country? I didn't think that Americans of English/British descent were anywhere close (I would guess third at best, after Irish descent)
Re: Chinese Businesses Fueling the Fentanyl Epidemic Receive Millions in Crypto
#75Earlier quoted context omitted.
This advice might have been true for pot or cocaine or even heroin, but is demonstrably untrue for Fentanyl. It's simply too strong. Once you're on it, you don't want help, or a life — you want Fentanyl. I'm sorry, but the rules have changed, and policy needs to adapt.
I am convinced most fentanyl addicts got hooked on it because it is the only thing they could get their hands on. Fentanyl is a consequence of the drug trade being driven underground and controlled by unscrupulous street dealers. Who in their right mind would resort to using fentanyl if they could just walk in a pharmacy and buy cleaner, safer, and less addictive drugs?
Re: Chinese Businesses Fueling the Fentanyl Epidemic Receive Millions in Crypto
#76The USA could simply protect their border and 99% of the supply would dry up (in addition to great reductions in crime that affects ordinary Americans). But then the Democrats wouldn't have a steady flow of illegal (and soon to be legal) voters, so that cannot be allowed to happen.
Re: Chinese Businesses Fueling the Fentanyl Epidemic Receive Millions in Crypto
#77Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is trying to say that decriminalizing opioid usage is not the solution; in that case, what is the solution that you propose? The war on drugs has demonstrably been a spectacular failure thus far.
> The war on drugs has demonstrably been a spectacular failure thus far. The US war on drugs has not done well. But there are other countries which in fact have almost no drug use — Singapore, Taiwan, China, among others. There demonstrably are ways to wage a war on drugs in a democracy that work.
Re: Chinese Businesses Fueling the Fentanyl Epidemic Receive Millions in Crypto
#78This is a phenomenal showcase for the utter failure of the war on drugs. Regulate it, tax it, ensure folks can safely use, and help them stop using when they're ready.
This advice might have been true for pot or cocaine or even heroin, but is demonstrably untrue for Fentanyl. It's simply too strong. Once you're on it, you don't want help, or a life — you want Fentanyl. I'm sorry, but the rules have changed, and policy needs to adapt.
We've heard this line of reasoning before during the crack epidemic. Policy makers are addicted to authoritarianism. The prison industrial complex profits. Black-marketeers profit. Intelligence agencies profit. Law enforcement agencies are given bigger budgets. Those wishing to use cartels to geopolitical ends profit in the political economy.
Just like with the drug addict, strong malign incentives exist for the continued addiction to authoritarian policy.
Of course, there's no need to go that deep. Simply invoke something scary sounding like, "think of the children", "this new drug is horrifying!" or any of the other stock tropes used to rationalize further expansion of state power. The same faulty lines of reasoning are used in attempts to prohibit encryption.
As long as people are sufficiently scared, there's no need to have a rational debate. Fear is a powerful emotion. Empathy for drug users, not so much. How effective has the last century of prohibition been? No, I don't agree that this is the best solution. Cheaper and more optimal policies exist, but we are stuck with this due to entrenched interests.
Re: Chinese Businesses Fueling the Fentanyl Epidemic Receive Millions in Crypto
#79Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not sure why your comment got downvoted. There were several articles before COVID that covered a few low-profile drug lords from China that were smuggling fentanyl in the US. EDIT: Found the specific article I was thinking about: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-05-22/deadly-ch...
It's been going on since at least 2010
Re: Chinese Businesses Fueling the Fentanyl Epidemic Receive Millions in Crypto
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am convinced most fentanyl addicts got hooked on it because it is the only thing they could get their hands on. Fentanyl is a consequence of the drug trade being driven underground and controlled by unscrupulous street dealers. Who in their right mind would resort to using fentanyl if they could just walk in a pharmacy and buy cleaner, safer, and less addictive drugs?
Fentanyl is super cheap, thanks to mass production, pills are like somewhere around $25-50, fentanyl laced meth is as cheap as $5? I don’t think any legal alternative would hit that price point, the cheapness would still drive demand if something else isn’t done.
I'd wage that the civil liability would be extremely high for all involved, even if it were legal.