this post was submitted on 11 Mar 2024
348 points (99.2% liked)

News

23267 readers
3509 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] UnderpantsWeevil -1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Because those aren’t substances which people want to use

They clearly are, as we'd been using them prior to the enacted ban for decades.

I thought I made it quite clear we’re talking about prohibitions of substances, not bans on toxic paints.

Do you believe paint isn't a substance? FFS, have you ever heard of huffing paint?

To pretend you don’t understand the difference

This isn't a question of pretending. This is a question of economic incentive to do trade and the impacts regulation/prohibition has on those incentives.

REGULATION =/= PROHIBITION.

Both increase the cost of transactions for the purpose of discouraging certain forms of trade by assigning bureaucratic hurdles and civil penalties with legal transactions. A regulation on gasoline that prohibits including lead in the formula is both a REGULATION and a PROHIBITION.

Are you on heroin, currently?

Analysts say the opioid epidemic started with the overprescription of legal pain medications in the 1990s, but it has intensified in recent years due to influxes of cheap heroin, fentanyl, and other synthetic opioids supplied by foreign drug cartels. The crisis has become a scourge on the economy, a threat to national security, and a major foreign policy challenge.

This was the root of the problem. Prohibiting reckless prescription of opioids in the 1990s would have averted the crisis in its infancy.

[–] Dasus 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

They clearly are, as we’d been using them prior to the enacted ban for decades.

Would you stop being this childish? Do you not understand what "using a substance to facilitate an altered state" means?

Unless you plan to argue that people were eating paint to get high, these semantical shenanigans will get you nowhere.

"haven't you heard of huffing paint"

You apparently don't actually know what it means to "huff paint". The lead and the paint isn't what you're after. It's the volatile solvents used, which will vanish when the paint dries. Do you know when "huffing paint" became a thing? When prohibitions were tried. People will get to their altered state, no matter what you try to do to stop them.

Prohibiting reckless prescription of opioids in the 1990s would have averted the crisis in its infancy.

I repeat, are you on heroin currently? Because the US isn't the only country in the world, and prohibition of psychoactive substances (since you're anally, pedantically, and utterly childishly still pretending not to understand what the context of this conversation is) has never worked, anywhere

[–] UnderpantsWeevil -1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Would you stop being this childish?

My guy, I'm laying out historical facts and your response only ever seems to be name calling.

Unless you plan to argue that people were eating paint to get high

There's quite literally a name for it - Pica. And lead paint, which is sweet because it contains lead, is a common substance people with pica would consume.

You apparently don’t actually know what it means to “huff paint”.

The incentives to include lead in paint, to enhance the color, and in gasoline, to prevent engine knocking, have existed for decades. Exposure can be recreational, but it can also simply be by way of chronic exposure. Nevertheless, there are economic incentives for including lead in the product in both cases. And the prohibition overrode that incentive.

Because the US isn’t the only country in the world, and prohibition of psychoactive substances (since you’re anally, pedantically, and utterly childishly still pretending not to understand what the context of this conversation is) has never worked

It has successfully deterred the sale and consumption of a variety of psychoactive substances, ranging from LCD to oxytocin, by eliminating them from drug retailers' shelves.

[–] Dasus 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

You're not laying out any sort of facts. You're trying to purposefully distract from the actual topic, because you know you don't know shit about it.

There’s quite literally a name for it - Pica.

Pica has nothing to do with getting high. It's a craving for weird things.

We're talking about the prohibition of recreational substances. Is lead a recreational substance? Is asbestos a recreational substance? "My guy", you are being extremely childish. It's downright funny.

It has successfully deterred the sale and consumption of a variety of psychoactive substances, ranging from LCD to oxytocin, by eliminating them from drug retailers’ shelves.

No, it hasn't. It's increased them. And do you know how I know you're an ignorant person talking out of their arse on the subject?

You write "LCD", like screens, when you mean "LSD", like the drug. You also write "oxytocin", the neurotransmitter (colloquially known as the "bonding hormone") when you mean "oxycodone", what Oxycontin is made of.

Which prohibition of a recreational substance has worked? Name one RECREATIONAL SUBSTANCE that has been successfully banned. (Note, even if you recreate by shoving pencils up your nose, that does not make pencils a recreational substance in this context.) You name one, and I'll show you where you can buy it, because no such thing exists as no prohibition [of a recreational substance] works.