- cross-posted to:
- usa@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- usa@lemmy.ml
President Joe Biden and Chinese President Xi Jinping agreed that China would crack down on the production and exporting of fentanyl and the precursor chemicals used to make it, according to media reports.
But while Biden is painting the agreement as a win that will “save lives”, drug policy experts told VICE News they’re skeptical the measure will curb the overdose crisis—and it may make the drug supply worse.
Biden and Xi met Wednesday in San Francisco, where both leaders were in town for the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit. According to the New York Times, China will go after the exporting of illicit fentanyl into the U.S. and the manufacturing of precursor chemicals, which are being used to make fentanyl and smuggle it into the country from Mexico.
You must log in or register to comment.
Puts on my Heisenberg voice
“Cracking down” on a drug has never worked. Ever.
Want to have an impact on the drug market? Produce a superior product.
A superior product demands a superior market share.
A superior product that is cheaper than the competitor dominates the market.
Dominate the market and competitors get snuffed out.
Want to stop Fentanyl overdoses? Offer the cheapest, best quality, most stable Fentanyl.
The junkies get a better high and accidental overdoses plummet.
You’ve got my vote
Aw, shucks.
Never try to do anything good because bad might inadvertently result from the action.
How about:
Prohibition doesn’t work. Never has. Every prohibition effort has failed. Every prohibition effort has done FAR more harm than good. Prohibition efforts are inherently and categorically 100% bad.
Implementing a new prohibition with a Chinese Dictator. WONDERFUL follow up to funding genocide.
Why are Democrats trying SO HARD to get Trump back in office?
I was going to ask why Biden doing stupid things would make people vote for Trump, but then I remembered that the average voter is dumb enough to shoot themselves in the foot to spite their face.
And yes, I’m aware that I’ve combined two sayings in a way that doesn’t make sense.
I was going to answer that Biden doing stupid things would not make people vote Trump, but rather, would disenfranchise people who vote Democrat.
I would say “NoT vOtInG fOr ThE dEmOcRaT iS vOtInG fOr ThE rEpUbLiCaN” is something out of touch boot licking neo-progressives say so they can sound just like Republicans.
I would say as a life long Democrat, I simply cannot vote for genocide, prohibition, the stripping of a union’s right to strike, and for attempts to “strengthen our relationship” with someone who is “definitely a dictator” (Biden’s words).
All this would force me to vote “no confidence” on the 2 party system, ie: not vote.
But I wasn’t asked so I won’t answer.
I know that not every vote in the US has equal power, and it sucks that that’s the case.
But if you live somewhere that your vote would actually have an impact on the election (like in a swing state), then not voting Democrat is increasing the chances of a Republican victory.
If you think Trump wouldn’t be pro-genocide, anti-union, pro-prohibition…then I could see where you’re coming from. But if Trump were president during the time those things were happening, would he really have done anything differently or more preferable?
Simplifying the argument: Do you vote for the Douche or the Turd Sandwich?
I vote for neither.
I save my one little spec of positive reinforcement (how ever strong or weak the Douche and the Turd want to make me believe it is) for a Bologna Sandwich.
The reality of the fact is that this country is full of morons entranced in the Douche and Turds rhetoric, so they are going to vote who their brainwashed mommy votes for.
I’ll just hunker down, observe the Douche and the Turd do horrible things and hope that one day I might get to vote for an Italian sub (no subtext that Italians are better or anything. I just actually like to eat Italian subs).
Except they’re not equal. One is objectively causing more harm. He’d be doing the exact same bad things, and other additional bad things, too.
If voting for the lesser of two evils is the one thing you could do to stop the greater of two evils, not voting means making it easier for the greater evil to win.
Vote for evil or more evil and next time you get super evil or mega evil.
Don’t vote for either and good may end up back on the menu.
Here, let’s try another aptly American food metaphor.
Last month, the High School cafeteria was offering chicken nuggets and tacos. The tacos were FIRE.
The chicken nuggets are lumps of disgusting pink slime kind of rolled around in flour and dunked for way too long in old unchanged hot oil, not even dried. Just tossed into an immediately soggy paper tray.
The tacos are tortilla, admittedly low quality beef that is browned in a giant frying pan then thoroughly drained, lettuce, tomato, shredded cheese, and a squirt of sour cream.
Half the cafeteria (somehow) prefers the pink slime Grease balls, the other love the tacos.
Half line up to pay 2.50 each for the slime balls, Half line up to pay for the tacos.
This month, the offerings are chicken nuggets and pork nuggets.
The pink slimeball food workers had a much easier time of it.
Pink slime ball. Flour. Unchanged Grease. Paper tray.
So the other line said "why should I wait for the beef to drain? Why should I prep the lettuce. Why should I prep the tomato? Why should I prep the cheese? Why should I learn to ration the sour cream?
That’s so much more effort and the Principal is on our asses because the pink slime Grease balls were cheaper.
The Principal took $50k for the school lunch program then made another 2.5k off the students. the pink slime balls cost 5k and the tacos cost 7k, but here we are busting our asses and the Principal is praising the slime ball brigade because they are a better asset in his “Pay for the Principals golf trips” campaign.
As a result, instead of offering those amazing tacos, line 2 is now offering pink PORK slime, prepared exactly the same as the pink CHICKEN slime.
As a hungry student with two dollars and fifty cents, do you buy the slimy chicken balls or the slimy pork balls?
You buy neither.
You go hungry. You go through the line and ask for tacos as loudly as possible, get to the cashier, leave your empty tray, and pocket your 2.50.
Next month, your option will be pink chicken slime balls or tacos.
You get 5 bucks worth of them amazing tacos.
(Metaphor based on a true story. If you were eating lunch at highland high school in 2003, you can vouch).
Oh no. Better keep that Fenty coming, or else other drugs might take its place.
I mean clearly there’s systemic issues driving people to seek this stuff, just removing fenty without addressing those means they’ll just seek out other things. Realistically we should be legalizing the safer stuff (psychedelics, MDMA, etc) that isn’t as damaging or addicting and raising living standards to combat the harder stuff but in our current state where weed isn’t even legal federally and it’s all treated the same more or less addicts and ODs on hard drugs are going to be the outcome.
I agree with what yr saying but it all makes me think you’ve never tried, whether on purpose or not, fentanyl.
Fent…makes you absolutely retarded when yr on it, but when you are, you are transported to the warm busom of God til you snap out of it. You don’t care about anything, hunger, cold, any trauma, any worries, any stressors. It all melts away for that short amount of time.
Besides the physical addiction sending a need as strong as thirst in the desert, that reprieve from pain is addicting all it’s own. A good majority of people actively using and seeking out fent assume they’ll die from it, and they’re fine with that.
I’ve never been on the ban drugs train, I think the subjective exploration of consciousness and meta-reality are incredibly important for people, be that in personal mental health and growth, artistically and spiritually. At the same time, I think letting Shamans control the flow isn’t a terrible idea, but if implemented should also come with an end date after society comes to terms with itself. I think terminal patients should be given as much DMT as they want for as long as they want it, it’s like making practice runs at the other side. I think ibogaine should be widely available for resetting addictions back to null, but that should prob be a guided trip, same thing with ayehuasca.
But fent shouldn’t be allowed outside a medical setting. The opioid receptor is devil in a red dress; dance with the devil, devil don’t change, devil changes you.
In a kinder society we would prescribe meds that turn off pain receptors, like the ones developed from jellyfish and other neurotoxins, but that would prob be stipulated with forced, active restraint bed rest. We don’t use those now because pain let’s us know when we push too far, otherwise we’d just keep reinjuring ourselves. But fent gives that absence of pain too, and coupled with the i-cant-stress-how-extreme-cravings people will look at the work necessary to holistically end their pains and just say, nah man. At the cost of everything. Parents abandoning children. Cuz once their high, they don’t care. So they just plan to stay forever high.
I’m all for banning fent.
It’s the embodiment of my second favorite malaphor “build a man a fire and he’s warm for a night, but set a man on fire and he’s warm for the rest of his life”
Sorry if I wasn’t clear, I 100% get trying to reduce fentanyl my response was more a complaint that we seem to always do these half measures but yes trying to get fentanyl gone is a good thing. I’ve done many drugs but thankfully never fent.
