All this feels like a rehash of the British Empire selling Opium to China in the 18th century. Only this time it's China supplying the United States along with other addictive digital platforms such as TikTok.
> All this feels like a rehash of the British Empire selling Opium to China in the 18th century. Only this time it's China supplying the United States ...
Perhaps not, but by instilling guilt in your victim, you can prevent them from defending themselves, if you convince them they "deserve it". Keep an eye out for this tactic - it is very common.
Except this is PRC being largely passive and watching fallout of American drug war failing. First opium war involved UK forcing, via military, Qing to stop domestic enforcement of ban on opium trade. Current Fenanyl "war" is PRC no longer actively cooperating with US on transnational drug war, which PRC did when relations were good - they scheduled fentanyl, a legal drug, on list of controlled narcotics in 2019 at US request. Now that relations are bad, there's no reason to commit state resources to enforce or support US antidrug efforts, especially for otherwise a legal medical product or precursor. Even less so when it's routed through third countries like Mexico - who to be fair asked PRC for help to get US off their backs, but why bother. Not saying PRC doesn't indirectly benefit, but at this point dead Americans is more side effect of allowing PRC triads to build network / influence in LATAM. Ultimately Americans will find some other supplier or substance to kill themselves with regardless and PRC inaction is cheap.
Americans somehow expect that they can wage economic warfare against China, trying to wipe out its entire tech sector, and then ask China to go out of its way to help the US control its own drug problems. If the US wants Chinese cooperation, the US should act reasonably towards China in other areas.
This is not even to mention how crass the comparison between TikTok and the Opium Wars is.
This 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.
If this is actually true, I'm not sure what policy would work aside from a big machine that says "ADDICTS" on one end and "MULCH" on the other.
In the spaces I've worked in, so far as I can tell, Fentanyl in accurately measured dosages dings the addict neurons not a whole lot harder than the other chemicals in the family; by that point the user is desensitized to the point that they're surfing the border of lethality already regardless of what they're using. It's not particularly more addictive than good Oxys.
Fentanyl's taken over the entire market not because it's some sort of super junk (all synthetic N02As are "super junk" in terms of addictive potential) but because it is cheap cheap cheap cheap, cheaper even than meth and cat at the height of that craze. Also, and this can't be understated, the synthesis is flexible and has broad precursors. Unfortunately, fent has an LD50 of, like, a molecule, so street chemists don't do so good when they're dosing. Especially if they're some asshole spraying it on fake weed or gas station dick pills. And there's no telling how good the mix is by the time it gets to Dr. Feelgood, anyway. There's zero telling what's got Fent in it right now, although I understand someone's making test strips.
I'm not so hot on the "tax and sell" by private parties. Jesus, we had enough of that. More like the "give it and track". The important part is to just know who's using - being a regular fent user these days is basically like being a combination underwater welder and base jumper, at the same time, as far as mortality goes, so that needs to be known by basically everyone. Along with the "track em", of course, social services- watch 'em like cats (put em in mandated housing if they're a problem), decent rehab, employment workshops, shit that doesn't involve learning how to suppress your gag reflex in an American prison aka "How to brutalize a population in five easy steps".
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?
Illegal drugs creates an innovative, unregulatable black market and ultimately promotes corruption, a force that grows exponentially.
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.
Many illegally sold drugs are now lightly dusted with fentanyl. I have no interest in opiates but always test any substance I use to ensure I’m not getting an opiate additive. Cannabis dusted with fentanyl is more addictive and produces a stronger high, which is why the cartels etc do that kind of thing. Same with other drugs - adding tiny amounts of fentanyl leads to more repeat sales for black market sellers.
The argument around legalize, test and regulate would help ensure the safety of recreational drugs in general, and reduce the black market’s ability to lure people to more addictive and thus profitable substances.
Typically this kind of appeal to special circumstances is the line of reasoning offered by addicts. "I know I still owe you money from last time and the time before that, but thistimeisdifferent"
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.
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.
Obviously being illegal didn’t prevent addiction, and being legal also doesn’t prevent addiction. Perhaps when it comes to “drug addiction,” the part that actually needs to be addressed is “addiction.”
There are a variety of treatments with a variety of degrees of efficacy but they all involve mitigating harm and providing safe and supportive environments.
Too bad it scored political points with the ignorant to just demonize addicted people and the things to which they’re addicted, almost as if that was the actual reason for the “war” on drugs. (Hint: Look up Nixon & crew’s reasoning.)
Portugal is the showcase. There are too many ignorant commenters who would rather continue wasting treasure on the failed, racist, militarized Prohibition and enrichment of criminals instead of adapting to what works in the real world: harm reduction and healthcare, not throw away the key.
> Portugal is the showcase. There are too many ignorant commenters who would rather continue wasting treasure on the failed, racist, militarized Prohibition and enrichment of criminals instead of adapting to what works in the real world: harm reduction and healthcare, not throw away the key.
That websites says:
> Portugal has not changed the legal status of any drugs. They all remain illegal, however, the offence for possession has been changed from a criminal to a civil one.
> Portugal decriminalised use and possession of all drugs in a way that moves the focus from criminal punishment to treatment.
> Drugs are not freely available, and they cannot legally be sold. If you are caught with a possession quantity of a drug, there are still civil consequences.
> The manufacture, importation and sale of drugs is still very illegal. Even growing your own cannabis is still a criminal matter, as is the possession of cannabis seeds.
So is this what the parent means when they say "regulate it, tax it"? How are recreational drugs "taxed" when they remain illegal?
> Elliptic researchers received offers from more than 90 China-based companies to supply fentanyl precursors, 90% of which accepted cryptocurrency payments.
But if they bought it, would the fentanyl precursors arrive?
BTC/USDT is easy to use but too easy to follow unless the person is going to extreme lengths to protect their anonimity (which generally drug dealers don't do, as it takes a huge amount of discipline).
A graph analysis can show the whole trading network.
This article claims Fentanyl is the "leading cause of death for those aged 18-45 in the USA". I can't find any legit source for this claim on the internet which proves this to be the case, only the opposite in fact.
Readit News
Two wrongs do not make a right.
Dead Comment
No, but three rights make a left.
How is that different than karma?
Dead Comment
This is not even to mention how crass the comparison between TikTok and the Opium Wars is.
I'm sorry, but the rules have changed, and policy needs to adapt.
In the spaces I've worked in, so far as I can tell, Fentanyl in accurately measured dosages dings the addict neurons not a whole lot harder than the other chemicals in the family; by that point the user is desensitized to the point that they're surfing the border of lethality already regardless of what they're using. It's not particularly more addictive than good Oxys.
Fentanyl's taken over the entire market not because it's some sort of super junk (all synthetic N02As are "super junk" in terms of addictive potential) but because it is cheap cheap cheap cheap, cheaper even than meth and cat at the height of that craze. Also, and this can't be understated, the synthesis is flexible and has broad precursors. Unfortunately, fent has an LD50 of, like, a molecule, so street chemists don't do so good when they're dosing. Especially if they're some asshole spraying it on fake weed or gas station dick pills. And there's no telling how good the mix is by the time it gets to Dr. Feelgood, anyway. There's zero telling what's got Fent in it right now, although I understand someone's making test strips.
I'm not so hot on the "tax and sell" by private parties. Jesus, we had enough of that. More like the "give it and track". The important part is to just know who's using - being a regular fent user these days is basically like being a combination underwater welder and base jumper, at the same time, as far as mortality goes, so that needs to be known by basically everyone. Along with the "track em", of course, social services- watch 'em like cats (put em in mandated housing if they're a problem), decent rehab, employment workshops, shit that doesn't involve learning how to suppress your gag reflex in an American prison aka "How to brutalize a population in five easy steps".
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.
The argument around legalize, test and regulate would help ensure the safety of recreational drugs in general, and reduce the black market’s ability to lure people to more addictive and thus profitable substances.
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.
Most people are getting drug addictis bcz of painkillers which have been regulated and taxed.
Obviously being illegal didn’t prevent addiction, and being legal also doesn’t prevent addiction. Perhaps when it comes to “drug addiction,” the part that actually needs to be addressed is “addiction.”
There are a variety of treatments with a variety of degrees of efficacy but they all involve mitigating harm and providing safe and supportive environments.
Too bad it scored political points with the ignorant to just demonize addicted people and the things to which they’re addicted, almost as if that was the actual reason for the “war” on drugs. (Hint: Look up Nixon & crew’s reasoning.)
If you regulate it and make it legal, you only have a health problem.
That websites says:
> Portugal has not changed the legal status of any drugs. They all remain illegal, however, the offence for possession has been changed from a criminal to a civil one.
> Portugal decriminalised use and possession of all drugs in a way that moves the focus from criminal punishment to treatment.
> Drugs are not freely available, and they cannot legally be sold. If you are caught with a possession quantity of a drug, there are still civil consequences.
> The manufacture, importation and sale of drugs is still very illegal. Even growing your own cannabis is still a criminal matter, as is the possession of cannabis seeds.
So is this what the parent means when they say "regulate it, tax it"? How are recreational drugs "taxed" when they remain illegal?
https://www.drugfoundation.org.nz/matters-of-substance/archi...
Deleted Comment
Dead Comment
But crypto or not, there are many methods of moving currency into China. That's the easy part because there's so much demand to get currency out.
> Elliptic researchers received offers from more than 90 China-based companies to supply fentanyl precursors, 90% of which accepted cryptocurrency payments.
But if they bought it, would the fentanyl precursors arrive?
Deleted Comment
A graph analysis can show the whole trading network.