Chinese Businesses Fueling the Fentanyl Epidemic Receive Millions in Crypto(elliptic.co)
elliptic.co
Chinese Businesses Fueling the Fentanyl Epidemic Receive Millions in Crypto
https://www.elliptic.co/blog/chinese-businesses-fueling-the-fentanyl-epidemic-receive-millions-in-cryptocurrency-payments
104 comments
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 ...
Two wrongs do not make a right.
Two wrongs do not make a right.
That comment doesn't imply that it does.
The GP equated Brits selling (supplying) opium to China to China supplying Fentanyl to the US. Both actions have provably deleterious effects to a population.
How does that not imply "two wrongs"?
How does that not imply "two wrongs"?
it doesn't imply that it's right.
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.
To me it seems silly to put the blame on China here. The US drug policy and overall capability to care for its poor has been a disaster for decades, with the drug policy slowly changing for the better recently. It feels wrong to turn this into some kind of anti-China thing (plenty of other, better reasons certainly exist).
The current fentanyl epidemic is worse than the previous drug waves, I don’t see US drug policy getting more lenient, quite the opposite actually.
Indeed, what I was referring to was the legalisation of weed in some states. No doubt the war on drugs will keep on going for years to come.
A corollary of "both-sides-ism", I think.
> Two wrongs do not make a right.
No, but three rights make a left.
No, but three rights make a left.
> Two wrongs do not make a right.
How is that different than karma?
How is that different than karma?
> > Two wrongs do not make a right.
> How is that different than karma?
Because the United States is not, nor has ever been, a part of the British Empire.
Karma[0]:
0 - https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/karma
> How is that different than karma?
Because the United States is not, nor has ever been, a part of the British Empire.
Karma[0]:
the force generated by a person's actions held
in Hinduism and Buddhism to perpetuate
transmigration and in its ethical consequences
to determine the nature of the person's next
existence
0 - https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/karma
> the United States is not, nor has ever been, a part of the British Empire.
The United States, shortly before calling itself the United Colonies, and shortly before that calling itself the Continental Association was formed as a group of colonies in British North America with common grievances against the government in London that it initially directed to the King within, and backed by an embargo against much of the rest of, the Empire. That attempt to improve the government of their part of the Empire to their satsifaction failing, they subsequently declared and eventually secured independence.
Which is to say that while it didn’t change its name to the United States until it had decided to exit the Empire, the organization that became known as the United States was formed as an association and agenda within the British Empire.
More to the point, the US, while not a belligerent in the Opium Wars, was a participant in the unequal treaties imposed through them (and played “good cop” while the British and French used force after the treaties relating to the 2nd Opium War were signed to secure their ratification.)
The United States, shortly before calling itself the United Colonies, and shortly before that calling itself the Continental Association was formed as a group of colonies in British North America with common grievances against the government in London that it initially directed to the King within, and backed by an embargo against much of the rest of, the Empire. That attempt to improve the government of their part of the Empire to their satsifaction failing, they subsequently declared and eventually secured independence.
Which is to say that while it didn’t change its name to the United States until it had decided to exit the Empire, the organization that became known as the United States was formed as an association and agenda within the British Empire.
More to the point, the US, while not a belligerent in the Opium Wars, was a participant in the unequal treaties imposed through them (and played “good cop” while the British and French used force after the treaties relating to the 2nd Opium War were signed to secure their ratification.)
> Which is to say that while it didn’t change its name to the United States until it had decided to exit the Empire ...
Hence my explicit use of United States, as it came to be after the colonies were no longer. Virtually all of the people who remained were previously British subjects, of course.
But designations before a nation exists are moot for those whom subsequently are a part of said nation.
Regarding the Opium Wars, I detailed in a peer comment my understanding of US involvement and responsibility. Even if one were to posit the US is equally responsible for supplying opium to China as the British Empire was, a position I disagree with, it would still fail to negate my original premise:
Two wrongs do not make a right.
Hence my explicit use of United States, as it came to be after the colonies were no longer. Virtually all of the people who remained were previously British subjects, of course.
But designations before a nation exists are moot for those whom subsequently are a part of said nation.
Regarding the Opium Wars, I detailed in a peer comment my understanding of US involvement and responsibility. Even if one were to posit the US is equally responsible for supplying opium to China as the British Empire was, a position I disagree with, it would still fail to negate my original premise:
Two wrongs do not make a right.
We know what you think you are doing but it's as dumb as a criminal believing that changing their name exculpates them from their past crimes. New name, different person right?
> Two wrongs do not make a right.
Punishments without cause is called a wrong, punishment with cause is called justice... or karma in the casual sense.
The US is what happens when you cream off the religious nutcases from the British Empire, put the greediest in charge and found a new Empire based on conquest, genocide and chattel slavery. Plenty of justice waiting for America.
> Two wrongs do not make a right.
Punishments without cause is called a wrong, punishment with cause is called justice... or karma in the casual sense.
The US is what happens when you cream off the religious nutcases from the British Empire, put the greediest in charge and found a new Empire based on conquest, genocide and chattel slavery. Plenty of justice waiting for America.
I wonder how much of America today is actually descended from these "religious nutcases", is it not a nation of immigrants? I think its interesting that you think surreptitiously poisoning a population could be considered justice for crimes that population did not commit. Very spicy take though, me me likey.
> We know what you think you are doing but it's as dumb as ...
You know nothing about me and the fact that you pluralized your vitriol only reveals a pathetic attempt to hide an ad hominem attack.
You know nothing about me and the fact that you pluralized your vitriol only reveals a pathetic attempt to hide an ad hominem attack.
They had like 20 marines involved in one of the opium wars, so they weren’t completely non-belligerent. But this came after the Taiping Rebellion that killed 20-30 million people, so the Qing dynasty was really weak at that point.
United States did partake in the Opium trade in China, even though they were well aware of the harm, and profited from the wars the British and French fought.
Drawing a distinction that the US is completely seperate from the British Empire is pretty dishonest. If you mean the "state" sure, by definition, but it's culture, origin, people, primary (though not official) language all came from the British empire.
Drawing a distinction that the US is completely seperate from the British Empire is pretty dishonest. If you mean the "state" sure, by definition, but it's culture, origin, people, primary (though not official) language all came from the British empire.
> United States did partake in the Opium trade in China, even though they were well aware of the harm, and profited from the wars the British and French fought.
True, there were US merchants which participated in supplying opium to China. Sometimes representing themselves, sometimes as proxies for British concerns. Also, an argument can be made that the East India Company operated under the influence, if not control, of the Crown. I do not believe the same argument could be made for US involvement, though I could be wrong.
However, unlike the British, the US in the Treaty of Wangxia agreed that any American involved in the opium trade would be prosecuted under Chinese law. Note that this does not absolve those involved in the opium trade prior or subsequent to this treaty for their actions.
> Drawing a distinction that the US is completely seperate from the British Empire is pretty dishonest.
No, it is not. It is a matter of historical fact[0]. Just because one nation can trace ancestry to another does not mean the newer one is answerable for the older one's actions. Are there commonalities between them? Of course.
But they are as distinct as a child is from their parents.
0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolutionary_War
True, there were US merchants which participated in supplying opium to China. Sometimes representing themselves, sometimes as proxies for British concerns. Also, an argument can be made that the East India Company operated under the influence, if not control, of the Crown. I do not believe the same argument could be made for US involvement, though I could be wrong.
However, unlike the British, the US in the Treaty of Wangxia agreed that any American involved in the opium trade would be prosecuted under Chinese law. Note that this does not absolve those involved in the opium trade prior or subsequent to this treaty for their actions.
> Drawing a distinction that the US is completely seperate from the British Empire is pretty dishonest.
No, it is not. It is a matter of historical fact[0]. Just because one nation can trace ancestry to another does not mean the newer one is answerable for the older one's actions. Are there commonalities between them? Of course.
But they are as distinct as a child is from their parents.
0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolutionary_War
[deleted]
Aren't Americans of German descent the largest group in the country? I didn't think that Americans of English/British descent were anywhere close (I would guess third at best, after Irish descent)
German-Americans are largest self-identified. But if we're talking about white people, US originated almost entirely by English people until the 1820 wave of German immigration. English are the largest, followed by German, Irish, Italian.
Guess that's why the war of independence was with the germans... ;)
Why is the US the inheritor of the British Empire's karma?
US was part of the 8-nation alliance invaded manchuria.
which was reacting to China's Boxers killing foreigners esp religious people like wild fire. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-Nation_Alliance.
After the invasion USA returned the "Boxer Protocol" money to create the best univ in China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Tsinghua_University
Not to mention US helped China to fight Japan, and build hospitals,etc. US never took an inch territory from China when it had the power to do that.
Russia on the other hand took a huge chunk territory from China and invaded and killed countless Chinese, but, China loves Russia while always hated US, I could never figure out why.
After the invasion USA returned the "Boxer Protocol" money to create the best univ in China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Tsinghua_University
Not to mention US helped China to fight Japan, and build hospitals,etc. US never took an inch territory from China when it had the power to do that.
Russia on the other hand took a huge chunk territory from China and invaded and killed countless Chinese, but, China loves Russia while always hated US, I could never figure out why.
China doesn't hate the US. Where did you see the hate? It also doesn't love Russia... I'm confused.
Also the Korean War happened. American bullets chopping up thousands of Chinese... it happened.
Also the Korean War happened. American bullets chopping up thousands of Chinese... it happened.
read true history how Korea war started. and no, USA army did not enter China, they were surprised to be ambushed by Chinese soldiers there out from nowhere, then both started killing. china "volunteered" to start killing Americans first in Korea and USA never even entered china.
Why was the USA Army in Korea?
I didn't say who started it, nor is that really important, but there was the claim US had never done anything to China... it's not true.
I didn't say who started it, nor is that really important, but there was the claim US had never done anything to China... it's not true.
why,who started is crucial to any war. also,china sent troops to Korea many times over history to fight why was it in korea again and again?
and here is how the war started:
https://www.history.com/news/korean-war-causes-us-involvemen...
historically countries all had conflicts and wars, if that's where you're going for "USA did something to China", you can list what they exactly did. While you do that, please do not forget, Chinese killed each other over history and it's probably 1 million times more than whatever the western alliance did together. Not an excuse for any sides, history is just sad and bloody, but focusing on blaming other countries is barking the wrong tree, for the most part.
and here is how the war started:
https://www.history.com/news/korean-war-causes-us-involvemen...
historically countries all had conflicts and wars, if that's where you're going for "USA did something to China", you can list what they exactly did. While you do that, please do not forget, Chinese killed each other over history and it's probably 1 million times more than whatever the western alliance did together. Not an excuse for any sides, history is just sad and bloody, but focusing on blaming other countries is barking the wrong tree, for the most part.
I was just refuting the false claim. The whataboutism you're engaging in doesn't change the falsity.
let's get it straight, what' is exactly the false claim are you referring to? I never said USA did nothing to China, in fact it helped China a lot.
If you mean "China does not hate US", then check its textbooks and the government propaganda since 1950 until now.
If you mean "American bullets chopped off Chinese soldiers' heads", it goes both ways, are you saying US soldiers are supposed to remain quiet while being ambushed by Chinese soldiers? Or South Korea should just give up when invaded by North Korea? that's why I said who started the war is key. No wonder China is backing up Russia these days, invasion seems justified there.
If you mean "why USA are at Korea", then "Why China was at Korea many times including this time"?
Read history, all things happened for a reason, nobody is innocent.
If you mean "China does not hate US", then check its textbooks and the government propaganda since 1950 until now.
If you mean "American bullets chopped off Chinese soldiers' heads", it goes both ways, are you saying US soldiers are supposed to remain quiet while being ambushed by Chinese soldiers? Or South Korea should just give up when invaded by North Korea? that's why I said who started the war is key. No wonder China is backing up Russia these days, invasion seems justified there.
If you mean "why USA are at Korea", then "Why China was at Korea many times including this time"?
Read history, all things happened for a reason, nobody is innocent.
[deleted]
McArthur also wanted to nuke Manchuria and poison the ground from the Sea of Japan to the Yellow Sea with radioactive cobalt to create a DMZ which the enemy could not cross. He was relieved by President Truman.
https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/douglas-macarthur-atomic-b...
https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/douglas-macarthur-atomic-b...
Russia wanted nuke china back to stone age, it probably made it had US not helped to stop it. history is full of "wanted"s
It's good to notice when your model of the world makes incorrect predictions.
Only some 60 years after the last Opium War.
We don't all pay deference to religious concepts like "karma".
Should ancient religions dictate punishment and morality?
When you put it in historical context, I'd be surprised if they gave a crap about sending it to the English-speaking world.
I usually get downvoted when I say this
To be fair, it is a pretty ridiculous comparison for anyone to make.
Sending massive amounts of drugs to a rival nation is unconventional warfare
Sure, and to the extent the US and China are actually rival nations, that's where the similarities end.
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 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.
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".
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?
Fentanyl is super cheap, thanks to mass production, pills are like somewhere around $25-50, fentanyl laced meth is as cheap as $5? I don’t think any legal alternative would hit that price point, the cheapness would still drive demand if something else isn’t done.
How much does a fentanyl laced Coca-cola cost at 7-11?
I'd wage that the civil liability would be extremely high for all involved, even if it were legal.
I'd wage that the civil liability would be extremely high for all involved, even if it were legal.
Ya, a lot of product being sold illicitly has no change of being sold over the table given the horrible liability. Drug dealers can afford to lose a few customers, a corporation can't (at least not without losing lots of money over it).
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.
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.
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 this time is different"
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.
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.
> The war on drugs has demonstrably been a spectacular failure thus far.
The US war on drugs has not done well. But there are other countries which in fact have almost no drug use — Singapore, Taiwan, China, among others. There demonstrably are ways to wage a war on drugs in a democracy that work.
The US war on drugs has not done well. But there are other countries which in fact have almost no drug use — Singapore, Taiwan, China, among others. There demonstrably are ways to wage a war on drugs in a democracy that work.
Ah yes countries where you face long prison sentences or, in the case of Singapore, the death penalty, for weed possession. This is the kind of society you want to live in?
No, I don't want the death penalty for dealing or consuming weed.
But yes, I think a death penalty for dealing fentanyl is appropriate.
But yes, I think a death penalty for dealing fentanyl is appropriate.
The death penalty for murder isn’t appropriate.
Singapore sure, but China has almost no drug use? Yes, the consequences are harsh, but it is still something that happens and drug testing of kids at roadblocks isn’t unusual.
People who say tax it and regulate it have no idea about drugs.
Most people are getting drug addictis bcz of painkillers which have been regulated and taxed.
Most people are getting drug addictis bcz of painkillers which have been regulated and taxed.
And you think this refutes the argument how?
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.)
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 make drugs illegal you have a health problem and a criminal problem.
If you regulate it and make it legal, you only have a health problem.
If you regulate it and make it legal, you only have a health problem.
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?
https://www.drugfoundation.org.nz/matters-of-substance/archi...
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]
next_xibalba(6)
My thought was "just millions"? The actual article says "tens of millions", but I think that's incorrect.
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.
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.
Is this true? Consider:
> 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?
> 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.
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.
More yellow peril clickbait
what exchanges I wonder?
This has been known for a while
Not sure why your comment got downvoted. There were several articles before COVID that covered a few low-profile drug lords from China that were smuggling fentanyl in the US.
EDIT: Found the specific article I was thinking about: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-05-22/deadly-ch...
EDIT: Found the specific article I was thinking about: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-05-22/deadly-ch...
It's been going on since at least 2010
It was worse before America threatens to cut off China’s preferential mail parcel treatment. They used to just drop it off in the mail directly to the USA, now they have to go through Mexico at least.
Yep. Used to be really easy to buy hundreds of grams to kilos of fentanyl straight from China. There were some problems with cross contamination/mislabeling/wrong shipment that caused some unintentional ODs. Can probably find posts about it on old Bluelight threads
What appears to be the problem here? So Chinese online businesses are selling chemicals to Mexican customers which can be used to produce fentanyl? Then Mexicans smuggle this into America?
The USA could simply protect their border and 99% of the supply would dry up (in addition to great reductions in crime that affects ordinary Americans). But then the Democrats wouldn't have a steady flow of illegal (and soon to be legal) voters, so that cannot be allowed to happen.
The USA could simply protect their border and 99% of the supply would dry up (in addition to great reductions in crime that affects ordinary Americans). But then the Democrats wouldn't have a steady flow of illegal (and soon to be legal) voters, so that cannot be allowed to happen.
[deleted]
Nice try.