this post was submitted on 18 Jul 2024
316 points (98.5% liked)

World News

38522 readers
2448 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] tal@lemmy.today 33 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (16 children)

Mexican drug cartels are responsible for manufacturing and smuggling much of the fentanyl that enters the United States and causes most drug overdose deaths, killing about 150 people a day.

Vance's repeated calls for aggressive military force, including bombing campaigns targeting...drug cartels in Mexico.

I know that the addicts in question are American, and that the manufacturers aren't, and that assigning responsibility for domestic problems to voters probably isn't much of a vote-winner, but I feel that maybe, just maybe, at a certain point, you gotta attach a certain amount of responsibility for drug use to the addicts rather than the foreign manufacturers.

I don't think that we're ever going to have a world where addictive, recreational drugs are simply nonexistent. I think that that's probably a lot more of a dead end in terms of drug policy than people choosing not to use.

We've got a pretty potent military. But I don't think that this is really a problem for which military solutions are all that useful.

[–] Shampiss@sh.itjust.works 19 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Doesn't matter how much you bomb Mexico. If there is a demand for drugs there will be a supply. No matter the price. A drug addict will do ANYTHING to get it

Cutting the supply would only work if you're somehow able to cut almost all supply for 30 years straight, until the currently addicted people die off or sort themselves out

To stop the drugs you need to stop the demand for drugs. Treat addicts instead of arresting them. And oh my god stop prescribing literal Opioids as "treatment"

[–] CleoTheWizard@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

It’s both actually. Obviously if you make drugs more rare, the price goes up. And when the price goes up, there will always be an amount of people that cannot pay it. The problem is that they’re then usually pushed to do something cheaper, but if the cheaper drugs are less likely to harm people, that can be a win.

Cutting supply isn’t everything, but it isn’t nothing. Part of the current problems are actually worse though because the worse drug is being added to a lot of other drugs that already have demand. So in this case it would help a lot more than usually because the dangerous substance isn’t necessarily what the addiction is for.

load more comments (14 replies)