World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
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 [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
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.
But we're just going to ignore the broken healthcare system that CAUSED all those addictions in the 90s, right? Yeah, sure, lets get people hooked on pain killers, and then cut them off cold turkey. They'll just stop being addicted, right? Right???
Continuing the flood of them over the border hurts upcoming generations too... There's no winning this without hurting someone. You either control the flow and risk upcoming generations who are also getting hooked on this shit. Or you cold turkey and hurt the generation that created the problem to begin with?
I don't think there's a real win here.
Or, you know, you could decriminalize drugs, allow legal recreational sales that can be regulated as with Marijuana or Alcohol, and actually treat (as in clinically treat) addiction like the disease it is.
But then you don't need bloated police departments dripping with surplus military equipment for that.
Recreational sales of opiates sounds incredibly dumb. Everything else is okay but let's not encourage that addiction outside of medical settings.
Legalization, regulation, and drug rehabilitation services is the solution.
No no, I'm talking about today. We already cut off the generation that started the problem cold turkey.....but I've never seen anything done about it. I don't see health care trying to take responsibility for the hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Americans addicted to it today. There should be a medically overseeing program which helps them reduce their dependancy.
It's simple supply and demand. I've never met an addict who says he enjoys being addicted. You take away the dependancy, you take away the demand. Without the demand for these drugs, the supply doesn't matter. Like trying to sell disco records in 1988. Instead, he's campaigning to bomb the shit out of our nearest land neighbor. Everytime I watch these hypothetical military videos, if they cover the subject of "What would happen if the USA went to war with...." and insert any country in the world besides Canada and Mexico, the answer is always the same. "It wouldn't get far, because the USA is seperated by 2 oceans, with the worlds most equiped military providing funding for naval and arial support. Just making landfall in the USA would be impossible."
But every one of those videos assumes that the USA isn't dumb enough to start wars with Canada or Mexico. Granted, I don't see Mexico as much of a military opponent, I think things could get violent along the southern border. Instead of the usual activity of random people trying to jump the border for freedom, imagine instead the entire nation storming the border with guns. Not even a military. Just a bunch of pissed off folks, who just saw their country get bombed. And I honestly wouldn't blame them at that point.
But what are republicans going to do? Annex Mexico? Ok, now you just made millions of Mexicans into US citizens. I'M fine with that, but I don't think trumps base would be.
They really don't think these things through, do they?
Oh fair enough... I saw you mention 90s in the prior comment. Didn't know that you shifted to today. For sure shit was overperscribed for a long long time.
Eh... If it's pennies, people will be able to afford doing it. You're not going to be able to bring demand to nothing. So supply skyrocketing just kills those people faster in this case. I'm not sure I subscribe to this train of thought that supply would never matter. At least with consistent busts and such the price goes up which makes it harder for people to get their hands on. But yes, I'd like to see BOTH sides of this issue, both supply AND demand handled. I haven't seen any presidency handle drugs in a way that I think is "correct". But I'm no expert.
I don't know why people keep thinking that Republicans are going to do anything? I'm pretty sure all they wanted to do for years was build a fucking wall... that's not doing a whole lot "against" Mexico. Do you have a source for this? This article... while it says it in the headline also doesn't source "bomb mexico". It states
Which doesn't necessarily equate to treating Mexico like Iraq or Afghanistan. The one "cited" source for bombing mexico is to cnbc... which doesn't state bomb... or anything even close to "Bomb" on it's page at all.
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"
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.
Drug addiction is a mental health problem. Reducing supply may have some effect in reducing overdoses in the short term, but it doesn't solve the underlying issue, and it's likely that new and potentially even more dangerous sources will pop up quickly. And military action is absurdly heavy handed and unless Mexico are on board with it, I can't see it ending well (and even then).
Right-wingers don't believe in underlying causes. Drug problems are the fault of the drugs themselves and/or a character flaw of the lazy good for nothing users. They always just want to put a useless bandaid on the symptom. The world is too complex for them to handle.
Yes, but a lot of the current drug epidemic stems from over-prescription of opiates like oxycontin. Another big factor is the absolute garbage availability of social services. If you're homeless, cold, and in pain, heroin is a great way to feel better for a while. Housing and healthcare would go a long way to keep people away from drugs.
Very few people say "you know, this weekend I think I'll take up smoking meth". There's usually something that puts them in a vulnerable position that makes it seem like a good idea.
He's leaving out the fact that the people smuggling in fentanyl are mostly U.S. citizens. Shockingly, citizens are less likely to be searched and you can smuggle a huge amount of fentanyl in a tiny container. Who is he planning on bombing to stop that?
https://www.npr.org/2023/08/09/1191638114/fentanyl-smuggling-migrants-mexico-border-drugs
It's still Mexicans, isn't it?
America's drug crisis is down to its healthcare system, justice system, education system and regressive social policies.
The cartels supply a demand.
I wonder how they'd respond to knowing that all this cartel violence is conducted with weapons manufactured in the US and smuggled into Mexico or that their wealth and power comes from US dollars manufactured and smuggled into Mexico?
End prohibition. Put the cartels out of business.