Drones are the new drug mules(vice.com)
vice.com
Drones are the new drug mules
https://www.vice.com/en/article/qjvma7/drug-trafficking-smugglers-using-drones
289 comments
On the plus side, if you can shoot one out of the sky, you get free drugs! No pesky armed drug dealers around to stop you from stealing from them! Just watch out for GPS trackers in the package.
Great way to star in a cartel video.
A sky pirate's life is full of adventure.
Another drone with a bowl cut hunts you down and kills you with an attached air pressure cattle euthanizer.
This made me spit out laughing! The future is cyberpunk, just no in the ways you'd expect.
I'm not sure what cyberpunk you read, but this is the exact cyberpunk future I expected. Aside from implants we pretty much got the sprawl trilogy, anonymous, WikiLeaks, drones, surveillance, AI, megacorps, I often think I should re-read and work out who is who. Like what faction IRL imare the cognitive dissidents ?
Names like Chomsky, Assange, Snowden pop first to my mind. Or someone like Navalny in Russia or Mandela in South Africa. Scientists like Dyson or Bohr could go under that rubric as well. And of course, many artists are bona fide cognitive dissidents. The list goes on...
>cognitive dissidents
Heh, I love the term, and am surprised on how little it's used based on Google searches for the term. Also, how many people misuse dissidents instead of dissonance mistakenly.
Heh, I love the term, and am surprised on how little it's used based on Google searches for the term. Also, how many people misuse dissidents instead of dissonance mistakenly.
Chomsky is a tenured professor in the Ivory Tower -- how on -earth- does he classify as a dissident? If anything, Chomsky represents the dominant ideology in academia in America. Maybe he was a dissident sixty years ago, when he was relevant?
And as with all of these things they ebb and flow. I would challenge you on the point that he represents a dominant ideology any longer, he may have once and he may still have adherents but he is not as instrumental as he once was. So perhaps he started a dissident and will end as one too, but for different reasons.
A good hint your ideology is not “dominant” is you spend a great deal of time decrying what the government does and it carries on while ignoring or ridiculing your criticisms. For that matter, how can he both represent a dominant strain of thought and also be irrelevant?
Because this “strain of thought” only disagrees with the government on non-issues. They align pretty well on the questions of property, rights, freedom, etc.
Perhaps people living in countries who have been the subject of U.S. interventions might not see them as nonissues.
I guess Navalny is a dissident but, man, seeing his name next to Mandela is jarring considering his views.
Navalny has some pretty ugly views, but I guess Mandela just never got the chance to implement Marxism or his version of socialism. That also has a habit of turning ugly as soon as it comes in contact with reality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_Mandela#Socialism_and_M...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_Mandela#Socialism_and_M...
Until I get to vacation on an orbiting satellite owned by a cryogenically-rotated family of Swiss aristocrats, you can't tell me I'm living in a Sprawl trilogy yet. And plus, RAM sells for way less per MB than Neuromancer led me to believe.
Oh yeah, discovering an alien AI would be nice too.
Oh yeah, discovering an alien AI would be nice too.
January 1st 1983 the internet goes live.
July 1st 1984 Neuromancer is published.
Today, we are easily over 60% of the way to the future envisaged in the sprawl. Just give it time.
July 1st 1984 Neuromancer is published.
Today, we are easily over 60% of the way to the future envisaged in the sprawl. Just give it time.
Drug addicts have been scavenging dead drops for about 10 years now, since drug dealing first adopted Tor and dead drops. The danger lies in identifying the substance. A lot of people ended up dead using methadone thinking its mephedrone.
> mephedrone
For a moment I wondered if this was a pun on the content matter.
For a moment I wondered if this was a pun on the content matter.
Nope that’s “bath salts” and lots of analogs or designer variations - none of which are in any way similar to mu receptor opioids like methadone. Sounds kinda dangerous to me.
>Nope that’s “bath salts”
A-PVP is "bath salts"; essentially an Adderall analog that is closer to meth - from the infamous "Florida man eats man's face on bath salts" meme, which was completely false. The man just had THC in his system and a clear psychotic break.
>methadone
Mephradrone is a drug 3/4ths the potency of MDA, a drug similar to MDMA.
The first "Designer drug" was Methoxetamine (MXE), which is essentially a (bladder-safe) version of Ketamine.
> Sounds kinda dangerous to me.
Yes, ironically, it is safer to let the streets create the (common) name and leave no room for ambiguity with this formal/informal dual-nomenclature.
That way people who don't know better make misinformed comments.
A-PVP is "bath salts"; essentially an Adderall analog that is closer to meth - from the infamous "Florida man eats man's face on bath salts" meme, which was completely false. The man just had THC in his system and a clear psychotic break.
>methadone
Mephradrone is a drug 3/4ths the potency of MDA, a drug similar to MDMA.
The first "Designer drug" was Methoxetamine (MXE), which is essentially a (bladder-safe) version of Ketamine.
> Sounds kinda dangerous to me.
Yes, ironically, it is safer to let the streets create the (common) name and leave no room for ambiguity with this formal/informal dual-nomenclature.
That way people who don't know better make misinformed comments.
> A-PVP is "bath salts"
A-pvp is now called “bath salts” in Russia and other countries. But when UK had a bath salts craze in 2010, it was mephedrone. Street drug names are weird and dynamic.
A-pvp is now called “bath salts” in Russia and other countries. But when UK had a bath salts craze in 2010, it was mephedrone. Street drug names are weird and dynamic.
The most important difference is dosage. A typical mephedrone line is 5-10 times bigger than the methadone one. If you snort a single methadone line like that it's a guaranteed death sentence.
I love how something murderous like bath salts get the attractive name "designer drug" bitch no designer designed this that's f'ing poison
The designer in designer drugs indicates that someone changed a molecule here or there in a known drug to get around drug laws that specified certain substances as illegal. So we ended up with a bunch of derivatives until such time as the law could catch up
It's designed, just the design goals were "be technically legal and try not to kill the user after one dose". Turns out those don't make good drugs, fairly predictably.
Hopefully not near your home-- when the cartel comes to the GPS coordinates ;p
Pretty close to the plot of No Country for Old Men
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Country_for_Old_Men
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Country_for_Old_Men
That's a tough and important movie
It is also a great book. The Cohen brothers adapted it masterfully, as they tend to do (see also: True Grit and Oh Brother Where Art Thou). Overall it's extremely similar to the movie, but it's a short read so well worth it if you enjoyed the movie and enjoy reading for fun.
Interestingly, Cormac McCarthy originally wrote No Country as a screenplay in the 1980's and went all over Hollywood trying to pitch it, only to be told things like "that will never work as a movie." Eventually he gave up, and later he adapted the screenplay into a novel (published in 2005). Then Cohen brothers take interest, and then they readapt it back into the screenplay for their film.
Interestingly, Cormac McCarthy originally wrote No Country as a screenplay in the 1980's and went all over Hollywood trying to pitch it, only to be told things like "that will never work as a movie." Eventually he gave up, and later he adapted the screenplay into a novel (published in 2005). Then Cohen brothers take interest, and then they readapt it back into the screenplay for their film.
lol you mean a pointless movie that intentionally tortures the audience and is unpleasant to watch because that's "subverting expectations"
trite critic-pandering trash imho, it's only "tough" in that the director hates you, the audience, and thinks you're stupid, and it has a nihilistic message that is the opposite of important, it's stupid and disastrous, and most of the people who I have encountered who like this film seem to be in a pissing contest with one another over who can enjoy the most unpleasant film
trite critic-pandering trash imho, it's only "tough" in that the director hates you, the audience, and thinks you're stupid, and it has a nihilistic message that is the opposite of important, it's stupid and disastrous, and most of the people who I have encountered who like this film seem to be in a pissing contest with one another over who can enjoy the most unpleasant film
Wow, what a take. Of course you are fully entitled to it!
This is perhaps favorite movie, written by my favorite author and adapted/directed by my favorite filmmakers. I was absolutely on the edge of my seat basically from start to finish on the first watch, and am still fully captivated every time I revisit it.
I find it a fascinating character study of three different people -- the cowboy, the sheriff, and the assassin. Each of them feels so incredibly authentic despite inhabiting roles from tired old tropes. I also believe the movie was superbly acted, which I guess is no surprise given that it was a critical success with some big names.
The point of the plot isn't to subvert expectations so much as to tell a story that is true to life: the societal decay which began in the 70's and 80's that can be embodied by, if not directly attributed, to the war on drugs.
More than anything else, the plot is a massive indictment of the war on drugs, as well as an (unpleasant) meditation on the role of violence in the American West that has existed for generations. Of course, that latter point applies to basically all of McCarthy's work. While some of the characters are certainly nihilistic (or just bewildered and filled with existential dread, in the case of the sheriff), the story itself is not. In fact, the novel was criticized by some for being too moralizing compared to McCarthy's other work.
The hero (and just about everyone else in the story) loses in the end to the implacable evil: an honor-bound psychopath who is motivated by more than just greed (but plenty of that too), who is perfectly suited to navigating his desires and achieving his grisly ends with absolutely no regard for the society that enables his success.
By the end of the film, he almost feels like a force of nature moreso than a man (and I think this is intentional, for instance in the way he is polite and almost apologetic as he murders the hero's widow at the end simply because he gave the hero an ultimatum that was refused). The point wasn't to subvert our expectations, although that may have happened along the way. The point was to show a very brutal reality that we still face today by retelling a story old as time through unique characters and a (semi) modern setting.
Haha ok I'll stop adding to this now. As you can tell, I have a lot of love for this story. You don't have to love it, but maybe don't be so quick to shit on people who do :)
This is perhaps favorite movie, written by my favorite author and adapted/directed by my favorite filmmakers. I was absolutely on the edge of my seat basically from start to finish on the first watch, and am still fully captivated every time I revisit it.
I find it a fascinating character study of three different people -- the cowboy, the sheriff, and the assassin. Each of them feels so incredibly authentic despite inhabiting roles from tired old tropes. I also believe the movie was superbly acted, which I guess is no surprise given that it was a critical success with some big names.
The point of the plot isn't to subvert expectations so much as to tell a story that is true to life: the societal decay which began in the 70's and 80's that can be embodied by, if not directly attributed, to the war on drugs.
More than anything else, the plot is a massive indictment of the war on drugs, as well as an (unpleasant) meditation on the role of violence in the American West that has existed for generations. Of course, that latter point applies to basically all of McCarthy's work. While some of the characters are certainly nihilistic (or just bewildered and filled with existential dread, in the case of the sheriff), the story itself is not. In fact, the novel was criticized by some for being too moralizing compared to McCarthy's other work.
The hero (and just about everyone else in the story) loses in the end to the implacable evil: an honor-bound psychopath who is motivated by more than just greed (but plenty of that too), who is perfectly suited to navigating his desires and achieving his grisly ends with absolutely no regard for the society that enables his success.
By the end of the film, he almost feels like a force of nature moreso than a man (and I think this is intentional, for instance in the way he is polite and almost apologetic as he murders the hero's widow at the end simply because he gave the hero an ultimatum that was refused). The point wasn't to subvert our expectations, although that may have happened along the way. The point was to show a very brutal reality that we still face today by retelling a story old as time through unique characters and a (semi) modern setting.
Haha ok I'll stop adding to this now. As you can tell, I have a lot of love for this story. You don't have to love it, but maybe don't be so quick to shit on people who do :)
As someone who has seen the film but was somewhat ambivalent towards it, I appreciate your take, but for the sake of others who haven't seen it, it might be good to put a spoiler warning at the top of that...
...? For such a strong opinion, you didn't include any examples of why you and your circle of friends feel this way about the movie.
Drug storks will soon start traveling in couples or under surveillance by a high flying drone. It has been proven in the last months that a drone can easily follow other drones home and kill the drone operator (or the drug receiver) if needed
Does anyone know anything about current defenses against large-scale drone attacks? The scenario I'm thinking of is 100+ small drones, each with an explosive device attached (maybe a grenade), all programmed to attack a specific target, at a specific date/time. The defenses that I know about (shotguns and nets?) might stop, maybe, half of the drones, but that still leaves 50 grenades, all set to explode on the same target. I just don't know how a target would defend against an attack like that - GPS jamming?
If you want to know more about the state of the art here, read more about the Ukraine war, preferably on Slavic language sites. It seems the main defense is electronic warfare, either jamming the GPS or the control signals. This is leading to an autonomy arms race at the moment, as a drone with a preprogrammed mission and optical flow sensors is much less vulnerable to jamming.
The future of MicroAI is going to be interesting for military purposes. Just think about the AI capabilities of your cell phone these days, then thinking just how a little bit more intelligence on a dumb weapon could make it far more deadly.
Yeah will be cool once “hallucinates” and kills friendlies. Depends which side uses them i suppose.
https://defensescoop.com/2023/11/01/army-receives-first-epir... Don't worry, the US military industrial complex has us covered. We just shoot as much wireless energy as we can at them until their insides melt or something like that. I would be surprised if these things aren't covering the border within the next year or two. Bonus points: uses the same new cool GaN tech that all the new Anker chargers do.
I get the motivation here, but it seems like the people who came up with the "solution" are using an outdated mindset vs those who came up with the "problem".
One, large, central weapon against a swarm of hundreds of small ones? It's a deadly assumption that an entire swarm would come from one direction, for example. Or that it would appear all at once. I'm sure volumes will be written about the strategies yet to come, but if what we've seen in the 20 years of occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq is anything to go by, asymmetric warfare is very effective at tying up resources.
Watching what the twichy youngins do with FPV drones gives me the heebiejeebies -- this has already transferred to battlegrounds in Ukraine, with some serious impacts (no pun intended).
One, large, central weapon against a swarm of hundreds of small ones? It's a deadly assumption that an entire swarm would come from one direction, for example. Or that it would appear all at once. I'm sure volumes will be written about the strategies yet to come, but if what we've seen in the 20 years of occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq is anything to go by, asymmetric warfare is very effective at tying up resources.
Watching what the twichy youngins do with FPV drones gives me the heebiejeebies -- this has already transferred to battlegrounds in Ukraine, with some serious impacts (no pun intended).
High energy weapons and EW are the only realistic way to deal with it without slinging 100k or 2m dollar missiles around. One problem is these missiles still have debris, though less deadly than an armed drone, they can still be hazardous. Lasers and other high energy weapons are probably the most cost effective and reliable solution for sub 10 pound drones. You generally need only knock out the MEMS gyro, overheat a motor or blind its sensors.
The problem is that drones are cheap and easy to slip around defenses. The other issue is weapon system reliability... the US military expects an extraordinary amount of reliability from munitions / weapon systems and they are supposed to be near 100% reliability. When they launch a missile, it's unacceptable for the missile to not launch.
The Coyote[1] is an interesting counter UAS concept and could be much more cost effective solution.
[1] - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raytheon_Coyote
The problem is that drones are cheap and easy to slip around defenses. The other issue is weapon system reliability... the US military expects an extraordinary amount of reliability from munitions / weapon systems and they are supposed to be near 100% reliability. When they launch a missile, it's unacceptable for the missile to not launch.
The Coyote[1] is an interesting counter UAS concept and could be much more cost effective solution.
[1] - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raytheon_Coyote
What about classic flak cannons operated by AI, or things like Phalanx CIWS ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx_CIWS ) or various automated systems that fire proximity fused ammo?
Just speaking from the US side of things, there aren't any 20/30/40/80/120mm AA rounds being produced in mass quantity and it is more of a scaling issue. Systems like CIWS are also incredibly bulky, requiring a few semi trucks worth of equipment to operate.
There are some German AA guns that have been used for counter UAS, but their export laws are a fucking nightmare to deal with if you ever want to sell, give or trade those systems later on.
There are some German AA guns that have been used for counter UAS, but their export laws are a fucking nightmare to deal with if you ever want to sell, give or trade those systems later on.
I think there's a lot of stuff that's really hard to defend against once it's deployed, launched, or implanted. Think about small arms, artillery rounds, dumb bombs, land mines, or improvised roadside bombs. You have deception, concealment, cover, armor, reactive armor, jamming, and some close-in weapon systems but the best defense is probably more active attacks against earlier links in the kill chain. I think what we (US military, intelligence community, and law enforcement) learned during the "Global War on Terror" (specifically about improvised explosive devices) was to analyze the networks and target the planning, recruiting, training, financing, manufacturing, and distribution components.
War is a game of logistics. Even Sun Tzu's Art of War is all about explaining the logistical realities of war to the aristocrats back home who were making the decisions.
I think there are enough limitations with the current tech that this isn't a big concern at the moment, otherwise we would certainly be seeing these types attacks in Ukraine. But the field is evolving incredibly quickly and it's possible this becomes viable in the future.
Some current drawbacks I can think of:
* Small drones carrying a load generally have a short range, which could make launching such an attack (and surviving the response) difficult.
* Coordination is hard. Manually controlled drone frequencies can conflict. There have been some automated sky displays that went well, but attacking a busy hardened target is much more difficult and I don't think the autonomous software is good enough yet.
* Cost in terms of money, time, and risk. Jerry-rigging drones with improvised explosives is time consuming and dangerous, plus 100 drones cost money.
* Jamming can protect a specific area from drones
Some current drawbacks I can think of:
* Small drones carrying a load generally have a short range, which could make launching such an attack (and surviving the response) difficult.
* Coordination is hard. Manually controlled drone frequencies can conflict. There have been some automated sky displays that went well, but attacking a busy hardened target is much more difficult and I don't think the autonomous software is good enough yet.
* Cost in terms of money, time, and risk. Jerry-rigging drones with improvised explosives is time consuming and dangerous, plus 100 drones cost money.
* Jamming can protect a specific area from drones
>Small drones carrying a load generally have a short range, which could make launching such an attack (and surviving the response) difficult.
I understand why such things are relatively rare, but its always sort of a wonder to me that fixed wing or tilt-rotor drones are not commonly suggested for deliveries of this kind. Obviously the flight plan is necessarily more complex when you have to have take-off and landing phases with horizontal components (which requires more pilot training), and the mechanical complexity of a tilt-rotor affair is substantial, but it seems like significantly improving the range could be a significant win. Are the training and design challenges the limiting factor? Is the maneuverability trade-off too much?
Anybody working in this space able to comment?
I understand why such things are relatively rare, but its always sort of a wonder to me that fixed wing or tilt-rotor drones are not commonly suggested for deliveries of this kind. Obviously the flight plan is necessarily more complex when you have to have take-off and landing phases with horizontal components (which requires more pilot training), and the mechanical complexity of a tilt-rotor affair is substantial, but it seems like significantly improving the range could be a significant win. Are the training and design challenges the limiting factor? Is the maneuverability trade-off too much?
Anybody working in this space able to comment?
Control signal wise, you can go for 100+ km on hobby grade batteries and a simple fixed wing: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CYJ2UOrlXgM
The set up would probably cost you around 500 USD: $50 for the frame, $150 for the electronics (gps + fc + 2 motors + 2 servos), $50 for a basic analog fpv system, the rest for the batteries.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RabFZzRyZo8 makes some interesting vtol experiments and his code is mostly open source, on GitHub.
The set up would probably cost you around 500 USD: $50 for the frame, $150 for the electronics (gps + fc + 2 motors + 2 servos), $50 for a basic analog fpv system, the rest for the batteries.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RabFZzRyZo8 makes some interesting vtol experiments and his code is mostly open source, on GitHub.
Honestly, I think it's about the immediate availability, and hackability of the tech. The Ukrainian (army? partisans?) had to respond incredibly quickly to overwhelming force. Off the shelf DJI quadcopters that just happen to have a light control that could be hacked into a release switch + some 3D-printed parts for said switch and fins to convert mortar shells / hand grenades into droppable bombs -- that's one hell of a trial-by-fire hackathon, grab what you can access and convert it into what you need.
All of these are solved or solvable problems and aren’t impediments in practice.
For comparison: a single unguided artillery shell costs $5,000. A guided shell starts at around $20K and fancy long-range versions can exceed $100K. It takes on average 2-15 shells per kill.
If you had a > $100K budget “per attack” and were making drones in large volume production, then you can easily beat the costs of traditional weapons.
Drones are cheap and can deliver their payloads with incredible precision. Not “150 foot radius accuracy”, but “aim of the left foot of the soldier” accuracy.
It’s a whole new ball game.
For comparison: a single unguided artillery shell costs $5,000. A guided shell starts at around $20K and fancy long-range versions can exceed $100K. It takes on average 2-15 shells per kill.
If you had a > $100K budget “per attack” and were making drones in large volume production, then you can easily beat the costs of traditional weapons.
Drones are cheap and can deliver their payloads with incredible precision. Not “150 foot radius accuracy”, but “aim of the left foot of the soldier” accuracy.
It’s a whole new ball game.
I think the coordination problem is pretty much solved.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbCR8mOPkuo
Some sort of lightweight material/string that gets caught up in the blades might work. Use it in flak guns and have it float down to the earth saturating the airspace. You could also use it in a barrage balloon manner.
Nets are also a good idea, there has to be a way to physically deny the drones from airspace.
Nets are also a good idea, there has to be a way to physically deny the drones from airspace.
check out what epirus is working on, it's basically a directed HERF weapon that can mount on a vehicle or ship
https://www.epirusinc.com/counter-electronics
https://www.epirusinc.com/counter-electronics
These weapons are the next generation of targets. Guys driving those trucks are going to get really nervous when HARM drones show up.
cat and mouse is the nature of warfare. They're already working on mounting these types of weapons onto drones as well.
Does this work if the drone(s) are automated and don't need an operator or to phone home?
this isn't signal jamming, it's a directed energy weapon.
it disrupts and degrades the electronic components that operate the drone.
this is a major business line for Anduril https://www.anduril.com/capability/counter-uas/
Aegis go brrrrrrrrrrrrr.
The article's examples use relatively expensive and human controlled quad-copters. They would be better off with a cardboard plank like the Corvo PPDS running an ArduPilot waypoint mission:
The Corvo Precision Payload Delivery System (PPDS) is a low cost, disposable UAS that is optimised for the covert delivery of small volume payloads. The PPDS is designed to be deployed into theatre in a flat pack configuration.
https://corvouas.com.au/corvo-ppds/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sypaq_Corvo_Precision_Payload_...
https://ardupilot.org/plane/docs/common-mission-planning.htm...
The Corvo Precision Payload Delivery System (PPDS) is a low cost, disposable UAS that is optimised for the covert delivery of small volume payloads. The PPDS is designed to be deployed into theatre in a flat pack configuration.
https://corvouas.com.au/corvo-ppds/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sypaq_Corvo_Precision_Payload_...
https://ardupilot.org/plane/docs/common-mission-planning.htm...
Pretty cool stuff!
And anybody who's been to the Funker lately can tell you that they're the new insurgents as well. It's astonishing how overnight the terrain of war changed completely when the first drone guided projectile was launched in personal combat.
I'd be curious to know what percentage of a certain brand of drones is dedicated to this purpose, and what those supply lines look like, because most of the videos I see have only but a small handful of models in use.
I'd be curious to know what percentage of a certain brand of drones is dedicated to this purpose, and what those supply lines look like, because most of the videos I see have only but a small handful of models in use.
Ukrainians mostly use their own drones made by various groups locally to avoid being centralized, they are also running into issues with russian jamming.
Consumer drone gear is very easy to jam, also easier to foxhunt (RF location hunting) so it works both ways.
Consumer drone gear is very easy to jam, also easier to foxhunt (RF location hunting) so it works both ways.
Jamming is a mixed bag, because a) you lose your own drone capability in that area and b) you broadcast a loud beacon that says "HERE IS THE APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF A HIGH-VALUE ASSET". The Ukrainians have had some big wins from triangulating weird-looking RF signals and unleashing hell on whatever is radiating it - you can jam a drone, but you can't jam a 155mm shell.
Jamming can avoid "friendly fire" through a variety of means. Directional antennas can emit RF in the direction of the enemy, but not your own assets. You can also jam on different frequencies than you're using to operate your own drones.
That's all fine and dandy, but if you can use the source to approximate a location, you can hit it with himars.
Alternatively, send gps guided drones with optical targeting. If the jamming system has inadequate air defenses, it might not be jamming for long.
Alternatively, send gps guided drones with optical targeting. If the jamming system has inadequate air defenses, it might not be jamming for long.
>You can also jam on different frequencies than you're using to operate your own drones.
That's an arms race with exactly one step.
If you're using a commercial system, then you're using FHSS across the whole of the 2.4GHz ISM band for your control link and most of the 5.8GHz band for digital VTX. If you're designing a system for military applications, then either you use SDR to go frequency agile across everything from VHF to the S or C band, or you're in the wrong job. The Nash equilibrium is for everyone to use all practical frequencies all of the time and the technology to do that is largely mature.
>Directional antennas can emit RF in the direction of the enemy, but not your own assets.
How directional? If it's very directional, then you've got a drone gun, which relies on you being able to see and track incoming drones. If you can see and track, you've already solved the hard part and making a hard kill is comparatively easy. If it isn't especially directional, then you've created a conical area of denial that is only marginally more problematic for your enemy than for yourself and still fairly easy to triangulate.
There is maybe a viable strategy of coordinating the frequency hopping of your jammers and your drones and using a distributed network of low-cost jamming transmitters to avoid painting a target on your own back, but it's well beyond the technological capabilities or the budget of either Russia or Ukraine. I have no doubt that DARPA are working on something along those lines, but the base rate probability of a DARPA project actually getting to the battlefield is fairly low.
For my money, the near-future of counter-drone technology is kinetic. The Flakpanzer Gepard was considered obsolete a decade ago, but it's arguably the most valuable asset in the Ukrainian arsenal for dealing with drone threats. Most current hard-kill active protection systems should be fairly straightforward to upgrade to reliably deal with loitering munitions.
That's an arms race with exactly one step.
If you're using a commercial system, then you're using FHSS across the whole of the 2.4GHz ISM band for your control link and most of the 5.8GHz band for digital VTX. If you're designing a system for military applications, then either you use SDR to go frequency agile across everything from VHF to the S or C band, or you're in the wrong job. The Nash equilibrium is for everyone to use all practical frequencies all of the time and the technology to do that is largely mature.
>Directional antennas can emit RF in the direction of the enemy, but not your own assets.
How directional? If it's very directional, then you've got a drone gun, which relies on you being able to see and track incoming drones. If you can see and track, you've already solved the hard part and making a hard kill is comparatively easy. If it isn't especially directional, then you've created a conical area of denial that is only marginally more problematic for your enemy than for yourself and still fairly easy to triangulate.
There is maybe a viable strategy of coordinating the frequency hopping of your jammers and your drones and using a distributed network of low-cost jamming transmitters to avoid painting a target on your own back, but it's well beyond the technological capabilities or the budget of either Russia or Ukraine. I have no doubt that DARPA are working on something along those lines, but the base rate probability of a DARPA project actually getting to the battlefield is fairly low.
For my money, the near-future of counter-drone technology is kinetic. The Flakpanzer Gepard was considered obsolete a decade ago, but it's arguably the most valuable asset in the Ukrainian arsenal for dealing with drone threats. Most current hard-kill active protection systems should be fairly straightforward to upgrade to reliably deal with loitering munitions.
Regarding directional antennas, I'm referring more to a log periodic antenna that roughly directs RF in a 45-60 degree arc [1]. Placed around the perimeter of a base, there's enough directivity that an incoming drone is being hit with 100-1,000x more RF energy than things inside the perimeter. It's not a "drone gun", it's still jamming an area. It's just wedge shaped area facing away from you.
And yeah, the most effective way of avoiding EF friendly fire is spread spectrum communication where the jammer is synchronized to avoid the frequencies being used for communications. But that can be tricky to set up, since you have potentially many different radio systems with their own spread spectrum scheme.
1. https://www.tutorialspoint.com/antenna_theory/images/uni_dir...
And yeah, the most effective way of avoiding EF friendly fire is spread spectrum communication where the jammer is synchronized to avoid the frequencies being used for communications. But that can be tricky to set up, since you have potentially many different radio systems with their own spread spectrum scheme.
1. https://www.tutorialspoint.com/antenna_theory/images/uni_dir...
That and larger drone comms for russia I would guess are satellite based which is harder to jam and sadly out of budget for the Ukrainians.
That being said I wonder if you could control small drones over satellite or if that is a $900 solution to a 99 cent problem.
That being said I wonder if you could control small drones over satellite or if that is a $900 solution to a 99 cent problem.
Satellite communications also has the issue of bigger form factor and larger power requirements. Not an issue for a predator drone, but your DJI isn't going to be using satellite comms any time soon.
The more promising areas are optical communications (but this has issues with fog and atmospheric attenuation), or directional antennas. Like, a yagi on a gimbal constantly pointed at the control station.
The more promising areas are optical communications (but this has issues with fog and atmospheric attenuation), or directional antennas. Like, a yagi on a gimbal constantly pointed at the control station.
you can jam a drone, but you can't jam a 155mm shell.
This is both a fantastic line and wisdom.
This is both a fantastic line and wisdom.
I wonder would something like a small anti-radiation missile work against whoever is sending the strong EW signal
So now you have SEAD missions to protect your CAS missions but all in 1/14th scale FPV drones… the future is wild. It’s a game of rock-paper-scissors-lizard-spock.
Somehow prescient:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_Soldiers
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_Soldiers
I doubt the signal is stronger than mobile phone or satellite connection.
And the drone is too small to be intercepted with missile.
FPV drone costs 500-1000$ now and is the game changer in the current war. No ground offensive operation can be maid now without great loses.
And the drone is too small to be intercepted with missile.
FPV drone costs 500-1000$ now and is the game changer in the current war. No ground offensive operation can be maid now without great loses.
A missile is too heavy, it's easier to just fly the drone into the jammer if you can locate it.
Or an anti-radiation drone!
It’s a lot cheaper to 3D print your own frame and just buy the components to build an FPV drone with an attachment for whatever payload you want to deliver. You can build one for under $300 if you already have controllers and headset to pilot one. Blades can now be 3D printed as well using SLA printers or using carbon fiber. ESC’s can be made with Arduino. I doubt they are flying DJI’s in one-way missions. Military drones are one thing but these new front-line drones have changed warfare forever.
The Ukrainian drone frames are almost all 7"-10" carbon fiber pieces machined out from a sheet in China. About $15. Speedybee (Also China) took over the ESC and controller market by undercutting everyone by 50%. The blades can't be 3D printed because they need to be smooth and strong, but China again sells them for $1. Motors, China. Ukrainian volunteers are assembling them en masse.
China is also selling the same stuff to Russia. Some local manufacturing is being attempted (for instance I have seen a Ukrainian made ESC board and Russian steel frames) but China pricing and quality is really difficult to compete against.
Russia is beginning to ramp up drone production in real factories and I suspect they will eventually out-produce Ukraine, who is easily building 10K/month right now.
China is also selling the same stuff to Russia. Some local manufacturing is being attempted (for instance I have seen a Ukrainian made ESC board and Russian steel frames) but China pricing and quality is really difficult to compete against.
Russia is beginning to ramp up drone production in real factories and I suspect they will eventually out-produce Ukraine, who is easily building 10K/month right now.
> these new front-line drones have changed warfare forever.
Beyond true. I'm in a telegram of the Ukraine war and there is so much drone footage of them literally dropping bombs on the heads of Russians, it is insane. All of this caught on 4k video.
There is one video of a guy sitting in the dirt... he's pointing at the drone to show where his friend is... drone bombs the friend, right on the head... and then comes back and bombs him. I'd link it here, but I think it is just too extreme for this site.
Beyond true. I'm in a telegram of the Ukraine war and there is so much drone footage of them literally dropping bombs on the heads of Russians, it is insane. All of this caught on 4k video.
There is one video of a guy sitting in the dirt... he's pointing at the drone to show where his friend is... drone bombs the friend, right on the head... and then comes back and bombs him. I'd link it here, but I think it is just too extreme for this site.
Can you link the telegram of the Ukraine war? I would like to see the state-of-the-art militarized tech in modern warfare.
WarArchive
Sorry for the silly question but how did you reply so fast. HackerNews doesn't tell an account when someone replied to them. So how did you know I asked? Do you monitor all your comments or use some service which does that?
Not silly or magic.
https://www.hnreplies.com/
https://www.hnreplies.com/
They are 100% flying DJI drones on 1-way missions. Even a relatively expensive DJI drone costs less than an artillery shell. War is hell in many ways, not least of which is the sheer expense and resource consumption it demands.
Actually the American M795 155mm HE artillery round costs the US army about $820 each.
However, FPV drones are the cheapest GUIDED weapon by far. It's finally cost effective to give every single soldier a "Fuck that guy in particular" weapon.
They will be significantly less effective in a real, peer conflict between great powers though. China or the US would likely have significant EW capabilities against drones. The US would probably rather turn off GPS entirely than deal with American soldiers being donked on the head with personalized grenades every day.
So drones in a conflict like that would be much less useful in "hot" locations, or will be significantly more expensive per unit so they can be made harder to jam and interfere with, or will be used more as a nuisance.
However, FPV drones are the cheapest GUIDED weapon by far. It's finally cost effective to give every single soldier a "Fuck that guy in particular" weapon.
They will be significantly less effective in a real, peer conflict between great powers though. China or the US would likely have significant EW capabilities against drones. The US would probably rather turn off GPS entirely than deal with American soldiers being donked on the head with personalized grenades every day.
So drones in a conflict like that would be much less useful in "hot" locations, or will be significantly more expensive per unit so they can be made harder to jam and interfere with, or will be used more as a nuisance.
> The US would probably rather turn off GPS entirely than deal with American soldiers being donked on the head with personalized grenades every day.
Would that help, considering that GLONASS, or Galileo, or BeiDou or could be used instead?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GLONASS
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_(satellite_navigation)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BeiDou
Would that help, considering that GLONASS, or Galileo, or BeiDou or could be used instead?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GLONASS
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_(satellite_navigation)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BeiDou
No, it’s not like the internet where you can just turn it off. GPS modules use the 3 major bands (2 at least) in case of failure so you would have to create a localized EMF field to block the radio of a UAV. Turning off GPS will not deter a drone that has a commercial grade or better GPS module.
You are correct that most (all?) the “GPS” modules used for drones would fallback to one or more of the above alternatives to GPS.
You are correct that most (all?) the “GPS” modules used for drones would fallback to one or more of the above alternatives to GPS.
I think the comment I was replying to was talking about the United States literally shutting down the GPS satellites and the signals they send out.
Right, which is why I said it wouldn’t make a difference as the drones GPS modules would just switch to one of the ones you listed.
I disagree. The US can't turn off all GPS, short of blasting EU, Russian and Chinese satellites out of the sky. I have an affordable GPS module on my desk right now that already detects spoofing with a fairly high degree of reliability.
But GPS is just one thing in the navigation toolbox. There are so many other ways for drones to orient themselves, from triangulating on RF signals to object recognition and location with ML, and both of these are now commodity technologies. And capabilities (and thus options) go up considerably once you start mixing and matching systems rather than leaning heavily into a single design.
When I say commodity technologies, I mean this stuff is so cheap and accessible now that I can see belligerents launching drone swarms simply to get the countermeasure batteries to reveal themselves. To an extent this is already happening in Ukraine; Russian ECM is superior to anything fielded by the Ukrainians (and allegedly, to anything the west has), but Ukrainians are in turn selectively targeting Russian ECM trucks.
But GPS is just one thing in the navigation toolbox. There are so many other ways for drones to orient themselves, from triangulating on RF signals to object recognition and location with ML, and both of these are now commodity technologies. And capabilities (and thus options) go up considerably once you start mixing and matching systems rather than leaning heavily into a single design.
When I say commodity technologies, I mean this stuff is so cheap and accessible now that I can see belligerents launching drone swarms simply to get the countermeasure batteries to reveal themselves. To an extent this is already happening in Ukraine; Russian ECM is superior to anything fielded by the Ukrainians (and allegedly, to anything the west has), but Ukrainians are in turn selectively targeting Russian ECM trucks.
The drones will soon be autonomous. The technology is already here, just not well distributed. EW (except for EMP pulse) will be a dead end.
They are already tracking down signal sources and targeting them. The drones fly around till they get a signal maximum then look down.
I have also seen enemy analog video snooping where they watch the drone take-off point and geo-locate it to bomb.
They are already tracking down signal sources and targeting them. The drones fly around till they get a signal maximum then look down.
I have also seen enemy analog video snooping where they watch the drone take-off point and geo-locate it to bomb.
The drone wars have just begun and it's going to be years before the new paradigm shakes out.
In a great power war the autonomous drones with inertial guidance and optical targeting are coming out.
Hell, with cell phone AI capabilities these days it wouldn't be too hard to shove an android in one of the larger dones and say if you get jammed and see something like this list of pictures, blow it up.
Grenades used to cost $8. Crazy how cheap that stuff is.
I just saw Ukraine drone-dropping Russian landmines back onto Russians. Fields full of free munitions.
I just saw Ukraine drone-dropping Russian landmines back onto Russians. Fields full of free munitions.
>significant EW capabilities against drones.
>harder to jam and interfere with
This is where I have my doubts... We have things like HARM missiles, and I think we probably already have are or are developing "HARD" High-Speed Anti-Radiation Drones, that loiter around then attack whatever decides to start making noise in particular areas.
>harder to jam and interfere with
This is where I have my doubts... We have things like HARM missiles, and I think we probably already have are or are developing "HARD" High-Speed Anti-Radiation Drones, that loiter around then attack whatever decides to start making noise in particular areas.
The drones are so cheap it's pointless not to send them on suicide missions. The cost per kill is vastly far from the limiting factor.
It might be astonishing but it was obvious soon after the war started that drones would change warfare.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31842578
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31842578
Prior to 2022 it seemed clear this was coming, fighters in Burma were using small drones against the dictatorship both for spotting and to drop explosives. It seemed like Ukraine was where real resources could be put into action, and things ramped up significantly. Before the videos from Burma I'm not sure where else to look, maybe Syria? There were drones used by ISIS but they seemed closer to military drones than what we see now with commercial drones or drone components used.
I'm glad not be in the business of protecting people/infrastructure from harm.
I'm not sure that's accurate.
Drones have been in use long before Russia took any land from Ukraine in 2014.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_warfare#Notable_drone_st...
Drones have been in use long before Russia took any land from Ukraine in 2014.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_warfare#Notable_drone_st...
Sure, they’ve been around for a while.
However, a war like the one in Ukraine will accelerate the development and usage of drones. You could tell by the early usage in the first few months of the war.
Now more global defense dollars will go into the rapid development.
Wait until we see swarms of (semi)autonomous drones
However, a war like the one in Ukraine will accelerate the development and usage of drones. You could tell by the early usage in the first few months of the war.
Now more global defense dollars will go into the rapid development.
Wait until we see swarms of (semi)autonomous drones
> Wait until we see swarms of (semi)autonomous drones
Slaughterbots[ß] becoming reality in 3...2...1...
ß: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-2tpwW0kmU
Slaughterbots[ß] becoming reality in 3...2...1...
ß: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-2tpwW0kmU
I think we are already there. "Optical targeting" and "edge computing" are terms getting tossed around in weird ways at times.
For FPV drones both Ukraine and russia but the components from China and assemble them locally.
Ukraine is very worried that China is trying to cut them off, so they buy through a long chain of intermediaries.
Ukraine is very worried that China is trying to cut them off, so they buy through a long chain of intermediaries.
I like the implication that drug mules aren't effectively insurgents. ;-)
Maybe this is a contradictory thought, but this is probably a good thing. I think you could argue that most drug mules are doing it because they don't, or don't think, they have another option to change their current life. If this reduces the number of humans used to smuggle drugs, it is probably a good thing.
> I think you could argue that most drug mules are doing it because they don't, or don't think, they have another option to change their current life. If this reduces the number of humans used to smuggle drugs, it is probably a good thing.
We really don't have the same outlook on life, because my first thought was "Oh shit, what are the people with shitty enough lives to be drug mules going to turn to now?"
We really don't have the same outlook on life, because my first thought was "Oh shit, what are the people with shitty enough lives to be drug mules going to turn to now?"
Cartels don't seem like the most laissez faire employers, especially when they need a lot of people for risky menial work like drug mules. There's probably quite a bit of coercion involved in these roles.
They'll become straw-buyers for drone parts.
Ah yes, here we go again with tech taking jobs away from poor people.
Not the drone delivery program I was promised
I suspect sub/boat drones have been used in the water for a long time. Seems like it would be relatively easy.
Yeah, I've read in the past some busts of big drug submarines, but I think having some small drone subs would make much more sense:
1. Unlike air drones, relatively small sub drones would be much more difficult to spot and intercept. The ocean is already filled with a lot of stuff like fish, so it seems like it would be relatively easy to camouflage.
2. One lost drone is a relatively small loss vs. having a big sub get intercepted and lose millions worth of product.
3. Now sure how big of a battery you'd need. Curious how long, say, a 2 mile long swim by a small sub would require in kWh.
1. Unlike air drones, relatively small sub drones would be much more difficult to spot and intercept. The ocean is already filled with a lot of stuff like fish, so it seems like it would be relatively easy to camouflage.
2. One lost drone is a relatively small loss vs. having a big sub get intercepted and lose millions worth of product.
3. Now sure how big of a battery you'd need. Curious how long, say, a 2 mile long swim by a small sub would require in kWh.
The issue is range, as you hint at with your last point. Because of how hydrodynamics works, big ships/subs are more efficient than small ones, and so it's relatively hard to make a small sub with enough range to be useful (or even enough thrust to reliably make progress in the open ocean).
The linked article[1] says that Punjab police (state police in India) shot down the drones. I am curious how the police even detected these drones. State police / local police in India is unlikely to have resources for electronic warfare or RF (radio frequency) detection.
Fun fact : one method of drug transfer (mentioned in popular media) from Pakistan (bordering Punjab) to Punjab is discus throw [2]. Here, a local athlete takes a disk of drugs and throws it over the border which is then intercepted by dealers in Punjab. A great movie about the drug trade in Punjab is "Udta Punjab" (literally translated as flying-Punjab or high-Punjab).
I can only imagine how many drones they missed. Drones usually fly at an altitude that our eye can't see. The drone operators must be smart enough to fly during cloudy days and during night time making binoculars useless as well. My best guess would be ground intelligence by police.
I am a bit surprised that drug trade in a state in India is using drones. The cost of drones (even commercial ones cost ~$500) is a pretty steep one when converted to Indian currency (~40,000 INR). The article[1] states that the police shot down >100 drones = INR 40,00,000. There must be a lot of money in local drugs in Punjab for the operators to be willing to sacrifice 100+ drones.
[1] https://www.hindustantimes.com/cities/chandigarh-news/107-dr...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discus_throw
Fun fact : one method of drug transfer (mentioned in popular media) from Pakistan (bordering Punjab) to Punjab is discus throw [2]. Here, a local athlete takes a disk of drugs and throws it over the border which is then intercepted by dealers in Punjab. A great movie about the drug trade in Punjab is "Udta Punjab" (literally translated as flying-Punjab or high-Punjab).
I can only imagine how many drones they missed. Drones usually fly at an altitude that our eye can't see. The drone operators must be smart enough to fly during cloudy days and during night time making binoculars useless as well. My best guess would be ground intelligence by police.
I am a bit surprised that drug trade in a state in India is using drones. The cost of drones (even commercial ones cost ~$500) is a pretty steep one when converted to Indian currency (~40,000 INR). The article[1] states that the police shot down >100 drones = INR 40,00,000. There must be a lot of money in local drugs in Punjab for the operators to be willing to sacrifice 100+ drones.
[1] https://www.hindustantimes.com/cities/chandigarh-news/107-dr...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discus_throw
Pretty much anywhere there's a drug trade there's an associated trade in stolen goods.
A box or two of drones falling off a truck in exchange for a bag or two of drugs changes the economics.
A box or two of drones falling off a truck in exchange for a bag or two of drugs changes the economics.
I notice a DJI Matrice 300 (larger drone) and a DJI Mavic 2 (can’t be totally sure if it’s a pro model). DJI is well known as the top market leader in UAV space because of its relative low cost ($13K for the Matrice, under $3K for the Mavic) for high utility/reliability (something you care about if you have a payload worth $10K plus). Similar drones made in the USA or EU are 2X-4X the cost and do not come with any other features that DJI hasn’t already thought of.
I guess that being a market leader means you will have a wide range of customers using your product
I guess that being a market leader means you will have a wide range of customers using your product
I feel like we aren’t too far away from the worlds first school or venue mass shooting via drone.
Technology wins again!
People expected Amazon deliveries
least surprising headline of 2024 so far
Drones man. I think drones are gonna be the end of mankind man lol.
Things that change the future are because they change it in kind, not in specifics.
Drones (a) remove the requirement to have a human present & (b) aerial ones can operate is a largely congestion-free medium.
Taken together, those two attributes are game changing for a lot of things.
Persistent naval ISR is going to revolutionized, just as aerial has.
Drones (a) remove the requirement to have a human present & (b) aerial ones can operate is a largely congestion-free medium.
Taken together, those two attributes are game changing for a lot of things.
Persistent naval ISR is going to revolutionized, just as aerial has.
> Things that change the future are because they change it in kind, not in specifics.
As always not sure what you’re on about.
All it takes is one moron who wants to hurt people to strap something dangerous to a drone and send it off in a civilian area. In a best-case scenario, going outside is ruined for everybody. In a worst-case scenario, like China or North Korea is the who does it and it’s a widespread/orchestrated event.
Seems pretty inevitable to me
As always not sure what you’re on about.
All it takes is one moron who wants to hurt people to strap something dangerous to a drone and send it off in a civilian area. In a best-case scenario, going outside is ruined for everybody. In a worst-case scenario, like China or North Korea is the who does it and it’s a widespread/orchestrated event.
Seems pretty inevitable to me
> In a best-case scenario, going outside is ruined for everybody.
It's not like progress will get to a certain point and then just stop. If terorists reach the point of being able to bomb anyone they want, an insane amount of resources will be directed at stopping that and new countering methods will be developed.
It's not like progress will get to a certain point and then just stop. If terorists reach the point of being able to bomb anyone they want, an insane amount of resources will be directed at stopping that and new countering methods will be developed.
> terrorists reach the point of being able to bomb anyone they want
I mean I think all they have to do is attack voters psychologically. Furthermore, what happens when these awful school shooter losers decide to apply Ukrainian tactics on after school activities? They’re all little wannabe terrorists. I personally think it’s just a matter of time, the same way Columbine was (unfortunately) a matter of time.
I sure hope I’m just over-paranoid. Could be a really dark future.
I mean I think all they have to do is attack voters psychologically. Furthermore, what happens when these awful school shooter losers decide to apply Ukrainian tactics on after school activities? They’re all little wannabe terrorists. I personally think it’s just a matter of time, the same way Columbine was (unfortunately) a matter of time.
I sure hope I’m just over-paranoid. Could be a really dark future.
Technical aptitude tends not to be found in one-off terrorists (school shooters). More so in insurgencies (IEDs), where there's an opportunity for specialization, training, and iterative improvement.
Mostly because technical people tend to be well-off, and well-off people don't have many reasons to throw their lives away.
The drone attack scenario seems more likely from a clandestine state actor, hoping to take advantage of anonymity.
E.g. ship a drone into the country, then detonate it in a mass gathering, then walk away
But state actors, even hostile ones, don't usually commit acts of terror against civilian targets, because they're counterproductive. They don't harm military capability and rally the public.
Mostly because technical people tend to be well-off, and well-off people don't have many reasons to throw their lives away.
The drone attack scenario seems more likely from a clandestine state actor, hoping to take advantage of anonymity.
E.g. ship a drone into the country, then detonate it in a mass gathering, then walk away
But state actors, even hostile ones, don't usually commit acts of terror against civilian targets, because they're counterproductive. They don't harm military capability and rally the public.
Eh... https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/07/11/theres-a-good-reason-wh...
At least in the West you run into less engineers performing terrorism because they have pretty good life prospects. Now, if you start replacing all their jobs with AI or other means of social upheaval that could quickly change.
At least in the West you run into less engineers performing terrorism because they have pretty good life prospects. Now, if you start replacing all their jobs with AI or other means of social upheaval that could quickly change.
I’m sure that was the same logic they had pre-Columbine
Walk me through how the Columbine shooters demonstrated technical proficiency?
They built then planted bombs in the cafeteria and parking lot. Thankfully the bombs didn't go off as expected.
One of them was even into mapping Doom (1993).
There have been shootings at universities by students there. So not all poor and desperate and indoctrinated.
One of them was even into mapping Doom (1993).
There have been shootings at universities by students there. So not all poor and desperate and indoctrinated.
That’s not what I’m talking about, I’m saying the logic was “something like columbine will never happen because …” like ok, famous last words. Technical proficiency is your contribution here and I just disagree with it. It’s not like drones are (a) hard to fly, (b) expensive or (c) access restricted. Kids my age at 13 were making backshed napalm out of pure fascination.
And also I’m pretty sure the columbine kids were trying to build a bomb, so there’s your technical proficiency request.
Like I said buddy, I hope I’m wrong.
And also I’m pretty sure the columbine kids were trying to build a bomb, so there’s your technical proficiency request.
Like I said buddy, I hope I’m wrong.
Drone are indeed (a), (b), and to some degree (c), to the extent that if you're proficient with them you currently have employment opportunities in developed economies.
It's the capability vs financially beneficial alternatives that matters.
Links on the Columbine kids building a bomb?
Given how easy it is to make a pipe bomb, I feel failure there would cut in favor of my argument re: Columbine.
It's the capability vs financially beneficial alternatives that matters.
Links on the Columbine kids building a bomb?
Given how easy it is to make a pipe bomb, I feel failure there would cut in favor of my argument re: Columbine.
You know… like I get people “want” to do drugs and all. (Not me)
But the older I get the more I’m on the side of this stuff isn’t necessary. It is detrimental to society and if someone wants to do drugs they should honestly reconsider their life and do something productive.
If it was possible to hot patch this crap out of existence I’d be in favor of it. Might even implement it myself if I could. I don’t want my kids to see junkies or live in a world where this kind of violence happens.
When there are way nicer and better options out there. And yea I get it not everyone has it well. I certainly didn’t coming from a 3rd world country, but I still found other ways. But that’s not an excuse. Honestly kind of demeaning/stupid when well to do people treat it that way.
But the older I get the more I’m on the side of this stuff isn’t necessary. It is detrimental to society and if someone wants to do drugs they should honestly reconsider their life and do something productive.
If it was possible to hot patch this crap out of existence I’d be in favor of it. Might even implement it myself if I could. I don’t want my kids to see junkies or live in a world where this kind of violence happens.
When there are way nicer and better options out there. And yea I get it not everyone has it well. I certainly didn’t coming from a 3rd world country, but I still found other ways. But that’s not an excuse. Honestly kind of demeaning/stupid when well to do people treat it that way.
so are what are you actually opposed to? the general concept of drugs? you can't really get rid of those: pharmacologically active substances exist as a natural consequence of how biological receptor and message-based systems work. unless you propose dispensing with organic bodies altogether and uploading our consciousnesses to the cloud. until such time nature can and will produce molecules that fit into the same receptors that dopamine, serotonin, GABA, glutamate, etc. do
are you opposed to "non-productive activity"? fuck it, let's ban the entire concept of recreation. free solo climbing isn't particularly productive and is a risky activity; anyone caught doing so should be promptly and harshly scolded, and then sent to the salt mines forever to produce economic value
are you opposed to violence and human suffering? yeah, me too, but drug abuse is by far not the only thing that can result in negative societal consequences. antisocial behavior (which, to be clear, is not _all_ drug use, but is some, same as how not all driving is reckless driving) is an unfortunate aspect of the human condition
"things that I don't engage with personally are inherently bad and should be purged from society" is a bigoted and egotistic argument. you probably do things i find unpleasant and i probably do things you find unpleasant. as a society, we find ways to understand why others do things and to minimize their negative impacts--we allow drinking, but not the markedly more dangerous drunk driving. "simply eliminate everything that may have a negative impact that i, personally, the saintliest person in the world, do not partake in" is a non-starter.
are you opposed to "non-productive activity"? fuck it, let's ban the entire concept of recreation. free solo climbing isn't particularly productive and is a risky activity; anyone caught doing so should be promptly and harshly scolded, and then sent to the salt mines forever to produce economic value
are you opposed to violence and human suffering? yeah, me too, but drug abuse is by far not the only thing that can result in negative societal consequences. antisocial behavior (which, to be clear, is not _all_ drug use, but is some, same as how not all driving is reckless driving) is an unfortunate aspect of the human condition
"things that I don't engage with personally are inherently bad and should be purged from society" is a bigoted and egotistic argument. you probably do things i find unpleasant and i probably do things you find unpleasant. as a society, we find ways to understand why others do things and to minimize their negative impacts--we allow drinking, but not the markedly more dangerous drunk driving. "simply eliminate everything that may have a negative impact that i, personally, the saintliest person in the world, do not partake in" is a non-starter.
Not the OP. But trying to engage in good faith here.
> what are you actually opposed to? the general concept of drugs?
No
> are you opposed to "non-productive activity"?
No
> are you opposed to violence and human suffering? yeah, me too,
good, we are on the same page
> but drug abuse is by far not the only thing that can result in negative societal consequences.
So? You can be opposed to more than one things that can result in negative societal consequences.
> antisocial behavior (...) is an unfortunate aspect of the human condition
Similarly, constraining it via various means to achieve overall societal harmony is a fortunate aspect of human societies. Else, there would be anarchy.
> what are you actually opposed to? the general concept of drugs?
No
> are you opposed to "non-productive activity"?
No
> are you opposed to violence and human suffering? yeah, me too,
good, we are on the same page
> but drug abuse is by far not the only thing that can result in negative societal consequences.
So? You can be opposed to more than one things that can result in negative societal consequences.
> antisocial behavior (...) is an unfortunate aspect of the human condition
Similarly, constraining it via various means to achieve overall societal harmony is a fortunate aspect of human societies. Else, there would be anarchy.
>You know… like I get people “want” to do drugs and all. (Not me)
> if someone wants to do drugs they should honestly reconsider their life and do something productive.
I don't think you get it.
For some people it's like drinking a beer. Not everyone feels the need to be productive 24/7/365.
On the other side. The people that are addicted to worse substances, can't just choose not to not and "do something productive"
An addict isn't waking up tomorrow, sweating, in pain, sick from withdrawal and thinking "Man i should just learn to code"
> if someone wants to do drugs they should honestly reconsider their life and do something productive.
I don't think you get it.
For some people it's like drinking a beer. Not everyone feels the need to be productive 24/7/365.
On the other side. The people that are addicted to worse substances, can't just choose not to not and "do something productive"
An addict isn't waking up tomorrow, sweating, in pain, sick from withdrawal and thinking "Man i should just learn to code"
When an addict reaches that point, they are almost certainly costing society resources. Not just being non-productive, but everything from social services to law enforcement, they are costing the rest of us resources which would be better used as an investment in our collective future. Society has a legitimate interest in the problem.
>When an addict reaches that point, they are almost certainly costing society resources. Not just being non-productive, but everything from social services to law enforcement, they are costing the rest of us resources which would be better used as an investment in our collective future. Society has a legitimate interest in the problem.
I won't disagree or agree.
My point is addiction isn't something people can just rationalize themselves out of by sitting down and thinking of a "greater good".
I won't disagree or agree.
My point is addiction isn't something people can just rationalize themselves out of by sitting down and thinking of a "greater good".
What evidence do you have for this? Have you met an addict? Have you met a high functioning addict?
Are you suggesting that because high functioning addicts exist, we can just ignore the low functioning ones? What proportion of addicts are high functioning?
That's so wildly far from my point.
Ah yes, the path of good intentions that leads to hell.
"That point" is a nebulous term that has a very wide range of potential definitions.
Also 'non-productive' is one of those terms that get bandied about by the worst of us as excuses to commit the worst acts against the other humans.
I mean, in your idea, we should give up democracy and follow some kind of authoritarian system that perfectly optimizes our choices for 'the greater good'. We've seen this doesn't work out so well in practice as even "good upstanding citizens" are still greedy pieces of shit that will screw over their fellow human for another dollar.
"That point" is a nebulous term that has a very wide range of potential definitions.
Also 'non-productive' is one of those terms that get bandied about by the worst of us as excuses to commit the worst acts against the other humans.
I mean, in your idea, we should give up democracy and follow some kind of authoritarian system that perfectly optimizes our choices for 'the greater good'. We've seen this doesn't work out so well in practice as even "good upstanding citizens" are still greedy pieces of shit that will screw over their fellow human for another dollar.
>as even "good upstanding citizens" are still greedy pieces of shit that will screw over their fellow human for another dollar.
I think a more charitable way to look at this is that whatever "good" is being pushed, hasn't really been sold effectively, or its being meted out unfairly or in a way that negates the "good". People are not greedy in a vacuum, they are greedy because they believe that failing to be so puts them at risk of losing resources they need. People in general don't horde toilet paper, but they definitely did when they thought their ability to get more toilet paper later was in danger.
I think a more charitable way to look at this is that whatever "good" is being pushed, hasn't really been sold effectively, or its being meted out unfairly or in a way that negates the "good". People are not greedy in a vacuum, they are greedy because they believe that failing to be so puts them at risk of losing resources they need. People in general don't horde toilet paper, but they definitely did when they thought their ability to get more toilet paper later was in danger.
And yet I introduced my partner to magic mushrooms on xmas day and we both had a great time. I only use drugs very occasionally and this one is decriminalized where we live. We both have stable employment that is not jeopardized by our substance use. We’re happy and productive members of society.
I like drugs and I wish we’d end their condemnation.
I like drugs and I wish we’d end their condemnation.
Bit difference between magic mushrooms and fentanyl though.
Yes, the difference being fentyl is widely used in legal medical procedures, and the ease of street access largely happens as an offshoot of that legal market-
https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Health/fentanyl-deadly-drug-deale...
https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Health/fentanyl-deadly-drug-deale...
Psychedelics shouldn't really be in the same category as "drugs" at all. Completely different things, users and uses. When people are talking about the problems with drugs and drug users, they are not talking about psychedelics.
The fact is that America had far less problems before the War on Drugs.
Police officers would focus their efforts on solving and preventing real crimes as opposed to playing puritan nanny and rifling through people's pockets telling them they're not allowed to be in possession of x, y or z.
Even if all drugs were legal, psychedelics are completely different than addictive and destructive drugs.
Most drugs capable of causing dependency have had their dangers grossly exaggerated to further the War on Drugs.
Each American needs to be given the facts and then decide for themselves, just like with religion.
Each American needs to be given the facts and then decide for themselves, just like with religion.
I think you are forgetting prescription drugs, who have had their dangers grossly underestimated to further medical industry profits.
Every day I see people on the streets, destroyed and turned to ghouls in great part because of the well known destructive drugs. Heroin, crack cocaine, meth, alcohol. There is no reason to pretend these aren't destructive. And there is no reason to put psychedelics in the same category, because these substances have nothing in common.
Every day I see people on the streets, destroyed and turned to ghouls in great part because of the well known destructive drugs. Heroin, crack cocaine, meth, alcohol. There is no reason to pretend these aren't destructive. And there is no reason to put psychedelics in the same category, because these substances have nothing in common.
> if someone wants to do drugs they should honestly reconsider their life and do something productive
I think this is a problematic way to frame the situation. If we zoom out a bit to look at systemic factors, a significant portion of drug use stems from other situations in a person’s life. People commonly start using/seeking out forms of mental escape from these circumstances.
This also runs us immediately into the question of what type of drugs are we talking about? I’ve seen elsewhere you’ve said this is just about the hard stuff, but that then points us directly back to systemic factors.
Declaring that someone should have just tried harder to make better life choices seems a bit like telling a depressed person they just need to start feeling better.
I’d be more interested in focusing on ways we can help people past their need for drugs in the first place. Research on Psylocibin-assisted therapy in particular looks extremely promising and an increasingly important area of focus.
As a thought experiment, it’s interesting to wonder what would have happened if research into psychedelics wasn’t set back an entire generation. Where would the world be in terms of mental health and trauma recovery? How many people who turned to hard drugs could have chosen a better option?
I’m not saying people shouldn’t be responsible for their life choices, but responsibility and causality are different things.
I think this is a problematic way to frame the situation. If we zoom out a bit to look at systemic factors, a significant portion of drug use stems from other situations in a person’s life. People commonly start using/seeking out forms of mental escape from these circumstances.
This also runs us immediately into the question of what type of drugs are we talking about? I’ve seen elsewhere you’ve said this is just about the hard stuff, but that then points us directly back to systemic factors.
Declaring that someone should have just tried harder to make better life choices seems a bit like telling a depressed person they just need to start feeling better.
I’d be more interested in focusing on ways we can help people past their need for drugs in the first place. Research on Psylocibin-assisted therapy in particular looks extremely promising and an increasingly important area of focus.
As a thought experiment, it’s interesting to wonder what would have happened if research into psychedelics wasn’t set back an entire generation. Where would the world be in terms of mental health and trauma recovery? How many people who turned to hard drugs could have chosen a better option?
I’m not saying people shouldn’t be responsible for their life choices, but responsibility and causality are different things.
Hey, just wanted you to know, I told the junkies outside your advice that they should reconsider their life and do something productive. They didn't realize "just don't" was an option! They shook my hand, and went on to become corporate lawyers for Raytheon. They thank you from the bottom of their hearts.
> But the older I get the more I’m on the side of this stuff isn’t necessary. It is detrimental to society and if someone wants to do drugs they should honestly reconsider their life and do something productive.
How would you feel if someone said this about an activity that you personally value and enjoy? Would you willingly give that activity up, just because some other people don't personally value it?
Why do you feel the need to control the activities of others, when those activities do not encumber your ability to live your life?
How would you feel if someone said this about an activity that you personally value and enjoy? Would you willingly give that activity up, just because some other people don't personally value it?
Why do you feel the need to control the activities of others, when those activities do not encumber your ability to live your life?
The kinds of drugs drones are flying over to the US easily can encumbere your way of life. I take it you've never had to navigate past meth heads or crack addicts on your daily walks.
Briefly, but yes, I've experienced that.
My reaction was "our social support systems really suck" and not "we need to restrict how people choose to live their lives".
My reaction was "our social support systems really suck" and not "we need to restrict how people choose to live their lives".
I have. Live in Philadelphia near one of the worst open air heroin markets. While I empathize with people having to deal with such a mess, I do all the time, I still would not want to persecute them. That is a slippery slope. Am I also awful because I partake occasionally? I think not. Neither are all my friends who are professionals that pay taxes and bother no one.
You really think someone shooting up heroin or fentanyl and someone going rock climbing or playing jazz are the same thing?
Why the insanely unrelated analogies? I specifically said drugs, like the kind you see when you pass any alley near Civic Center or downtown SF with dozens of people just laying there and drug dealers with backpacks walking around. Is that a sign of a good society? Those people don’t want help and they sure as hell aren’t engaging in anything productive like building software, buildings, or offering any services on Taskrabbit..
yes it’s sad but there’s also a balance and line between what’s acceptable and not for a functioning society. This is a minority % wise of society (don’t want help, aren’t interested in getting clean) and they cause a disproportionate level of destruction. The problem is drugs and people are willing to do whatever it takes across the drug supply chain to keep it operating.
Btw you need to be productive in order to afford rock climbing or skiing or even gaming on a pc…
Unbelievable.
Why the insanely unrelated analogies? I specifically said drugs, like the kind you see when you pass any alley near Civic Center or downtown SF with dozens of people just laying there and drug dealers with backpacks walking around. Is that a sign of a good society? Those people don’t want help and they sure as hell aren’t engaging in anything productive like building software, buildings, or offering any services on Taskrabbit..
yes it’s sad but there’s also a balance and line between what’s acceptable and not for a functioning society. This is a minority % wise of society (don’t want help, aren’t interested in getting clean) and they cause a disproportionate level of destruction. The problem is drugs and people are willing to do whatever it takes across the drug supply chain to keep it operating.
Btw you need to be productive in order to afford rock climbing or skiing or even gaming on a pc…
Unbelievable.
It would be nice if you actually answered the questions that were posed.
Instead, you just once again reiterated that you don't approve of how other people choose to spend their time.
Instead, you just once again reiterated that you don't approve of how other people choose to spend their time.
I gave you an answer.
Literally picked a couple things I like (pc gaming and rock climbing) which require me to maintain health insurance and a good financial status so I can buy a 4090 and whatever to play some games. I have to be productive to enjoy those things. That’s not even what we are talking about, and I don’t understand why you conflate those with cartels who behead and dismember people and people who just disturb the peace or attack people while on hard drugs.
And yeah I guess I don’t approve seeing people destroy my city with drugs and violence. I’m paying more than half of my annual personal income in taxes, and what I have to do is to avoid certain areas of my city at night because it’s not safe and not a nice sight with people self harming themselves voluntarily and on purpose.
Literally picked a couple things I like (pc gaming and rock climbing) which require me to maintain health insurance and a good financial status so I can buy a 4090 and whatever to play some games. I have to be productive to enjoy those things. That’s not even what we are talking about, and I don’t understand why you conflate those with cartels who behead and dismember people and people who just disturb the peace or attack people while on hard drugs.
And yeah I guess I don’t approve seeing people destroy my city with drugs and violence. I’m paying more than half of my annual personal income in taxes, and what I have to do is to avoid certain areas of my city at night because it’s not safe and not a nice sight with people self harming themselves voluntarily and on purpose.
Ok. So let's consider PC gaming. There are many people out there who consider that activity to be harmful, and to not be a productive use of one's time.
So....are you going to give up gaming?
> And yeah I guess I don’t approve seeing people destroy my city with drugs and violence.
Sounds like your actual problem is with violence, have you considered advocating for better policing against that?
So....are you going to give up gaming?
> And yeah I guess I don’t approve seeing people destroy my city with drugs and violence.
Sounds like your actual problem is with violence, have you considered advocating for better policing against that?
Am I going to give someone a disease if I leave a needle out?
Am I going to start attacking people who are just drinking coffee while having a business meeting (literally happened to me, dude ran at me and pushed me and then ran away while screaming)?
I really don’t understand how you don’t get that being high on certain drugs and being really harmful to other people is comparable to a video game addict who at worst would just stay in their room and smell bad?
Are you trolling? Anyway I said my piece above, I guess people like you and me will always contend with each other because I guess some people are okay and maybe want to see more of the current situation in tenderloin, civic center, etc.
Cheers!
Am I going to start attacking people who are just drinking coffee while having a business meeting (literally happened to me, dude ran at me and pushed me and then ran away while screaming)?
I really don’t understand how you don’t get that being high on certain drugs and being really harmful to other people is comparable to a video game addict who at worst would just stay in their room and smell bad?
Are you trolling? Anyway I said my piece above, I guess people like you and me will always contend with each other because I guess some people are okay and maybe want to see more of the current situation in tenderloin, civic center, etc.
Cheers!
At no point above have you actually answered the question posed. Since you seem to be easily distractible, here it is again in concise form: How would you react if someone told you that (in their opinion) one of your preferred activities (such as gaming) is unproductive and detrimental to society. Would you stop that activity?
It's pretty clear that your answer is "obviously not", and that it's causing you great discomfort to reconcile that answer with your hatred towards the different ways that others choose to live their lives.
It's pretty clear that your answer is "obviously not", and that it's causing you great discomfort to reconcile that answer with your hatred towards the different ways that others choose to live their lives.
> Am I going to give someone a disease if I leave a needle out?
You are engaging with a severely addictive product produced by addiction-merchants that produces nothing other than good feelings for the user. Your disease of gaming addiction is contagious to others if they see you enjoying it or hear about you enjoying it. The supply chains needed to support your drug of choice involve ripping millions of pounds of rare materials out of the dirt of poor nations that have virtually no labor protections. The thing you enjoy has outrageous externalities that society chooses to accept and legally profit from. There are probably 20x more human life-hours devoured by gaming than by being high all the time, and much less good art is made by the gamers.
"dude ran at me and pushed me..." Yes, in this completely heartless monstrosity we call "American society" there's no help for people who are crazy. Many of those people turn into drug addicts simply looking for relief from their mental illnesses. Seeing this in action can be scary or violent, but this is the outcome you support if you're a tax-payer in America.
The issue is that we have a horrible, violent, selfish, greedy, and self-important society and culture in America. Being exposed to that is uncomfortable, but that's what it is. Trying to imprison the outcomes of that society, or ignore it, or condemn it, etc, is an effort to extract your personal culpability from it. We created this place where people would rather be unhealthy than be healthy. It's human nature to react to a sick place like this, and it's totally unproductive to blame the least amongst us in society for a problem created by the wealthiest amongst us.
Don't like drug dealers? Me neither - the State should provide free drugs. Don't like drug addicts? Me neither - the State should provide all the support needed to rehabilitate citizens, which goes much farther than putting people in a clinic. Don't like drugs? Everything in America is drugs in one form or another.
You are engaging with a severely addictive product produced by addiction-merchants that produces nothing other than good feelings for the user. Your disease of gaming addiction is contagious to others if they see you enjoying it or hear about you enjoying it. The supply chains needed to support your drug of choice involve ripping millions of pounds of rare materials out of the dirt of poor nations that have virtually no labor protections. The thing you enjoy has outrageous externalities that society chooses to accept and legally profit from. There are probably 20x more human life-hours devoured by gaming than by being high all the time, and much less good art is made by the gamers.
"dude ran at me and pushed me..." Yes, in this completely heartless monstrosity we call "American society" there's no help for people who are crazy. Many of those people turn into drug addicts simply looking for relief from their mental illnesses. Seeing this in action can be scary or violent, but this is the outcome you support if you're a tax-payer in America.
The issue is that we have a horrible, violent, selfish, greedy, and self-important society and culture in America. Being exposed to that is uncomfortable, but that's what it is. Trying to imprison the outcomes of that society, or ignore it, or condemn it, etc, is an effort to extract your personal culpability from it. We created this place where people would rather be unhealthy than be healthy. It's human nature to react to a sick place like this, and it's totally unproductive to blame the least amongst us in society for a problem created by the wealthiest amongst us.
Don't like drug dealers? Me neither - the State should provide free drugs. Don't like drug addicts? Me neither - the State should provide all the support needed to rehabilitate citizens, which goes much farther than putting people in a clinic. Don't like drugs? Everything in America is drugs in one form or another.
> I specifically said drugs, like the kind you see when you pass any alley near Civic Center or downtown SF with dozens of people just laying there and drug dealers with backpacks walking around.
There is a very wide variety of things referred to as "drugs" including ones that are in various ways controlled or illegal, and some that aren't, on a state by state and country by country basis.
The ones you are referring to are a subset, and the addicts who "don't want help" are likely a subset of those users and the only ones you see and take notice of.
So just saying "drugs" is probably over-generalized.
There is a very wide variety of things referred to as "drugs" including ones that are in various ways controlled or illegal, and some that aren't, on a state by state and country by country basis.
The ones you are referring to are a subset, and the addicts who "don't want help" are likely a subset of those users and the only ones you see and take notice of.
So just saying "drugs" is probably over-generalized.
> You really think someone shooting up heroin or fentanyl and someone going rock climbing or playing jazz are the same thing?
You really think someone smoking a bowl or drinking a glass of alcohol after a day at work is the same thing as shooting up heroin or fentanyl?
Seriously, that was a very uncharitable take of their comment. You really did just say this about "do[ing] drugs" which includes "drinking alcohol" as well as "smoking marijuana" as well as "taking medication".
I'm someone who might smoke a bowl when I get home from work; do I not do productive things? As you said, I have to be productive in order to afford my vice. Consider also: one might take a hit of something and then start playing jazz.
You really think someone smoking a bowl or drinking a glass of alcohol after a day at work is the same thing as shooting up heroin or fentanyl?
Seriously, that was a very uncharitable take of their comment. You really did just say this about "do[ing] drugs" which includes "drinking alcohol" as well as "smoking marijuana" as well as "taking medication".
I'm someone who might smoke a bowl when I get home from work; do I not do productive things? As you said, I have to be productive in order to afford my vice. Consider also: one might take a hit of something and then start playing jazz.
You know… like I get people “want” to drink and all. (Not me)
But the older I get the more I’m on the side of this stuff isn’t necessary. It is detrimental to society and if someone wants to drink they should honestly reconsider their life and do something productive.
If it was possible to hot patch this crap out of existence I’d be in favor of it. Might even implement it myself if I could. I don’t want my kids to see drunks or live in a world where this kind of violence happens.
When there are way nicer and better options out there. And yea I get it not everyone has it well. I certainly didn’t coming from a 3rd world country, but I still found other ways. But that’s not an excuse. Honestly kind of demeaning/stupid when well to do people treat it that way.
But the older I get the more I’m on the side of this stuff isn’t necessary. It is detrimental to society and if someone wants to drink they should honestly reconsider their life and do something productive.
If it was possible to hot patch this crap out of existence I’d be in favor of it. Might even implement it myself if I could. I don’t want my kids to see drunks or live in a world where this kind of violence happens.
When there are way nicer and better options out there. And yea I get it not everyone has it well. I certainly didn’t coming from a 3rd world country, but I still found other ways. But that’s not an excuse. Honestly kind of demeaning/stupid when well to do people treat it that way.
Not doing drugs leads to a healthier society and better people. However it definitely results in much lower life enjoyment. Getting satisfaction from being productive is not universal. Me for instance. I’ve worked on and managed hugely important projects and get almost no satisfaction from it being successful. I’m happy and content when I have nothing to do and can peacefully work on my hobbies that may or may not be productive. Nothing compares to having a good time at the rave in ecstasy or gambling and sex high on cocaine. I haven’t done hard drugs in a decade but they do make life enjoyable for people not driven by traditional societal drivers.
> Nothing compares to having a good time at the rave in ecstasy or gambling and sex high on cocaine.
This attitude is the problem. Drugs are an easy trigger for those experiences and feelings that avoid all the self work humans are meant to do that would give them BETTER and more intense versions of the same feelings without any of the downsides. You don't need drugs to have highs and psychedelic experiences.
This attitude is the problem. Drugs are an easy trigger for those experiences and feelings that avoid all the self work humans are meant to do that would give them BETTER and more intense versions of the same feelings without any of the downsides. You don't need drugs to have highs and psychedelic experiences.
>avoid all the self work humans are meant to do
Hold up, where did you get this rulebook of what humans were "meant to do"?
I just get very concerned about this entire meant to do thing, because I'm pretty sure that almost everything we do in the 21st century would fall off that list. I mean, we're not meant to fly right? Go over 50 miles per hours right out? To strong alcohol? Licking toads? Viewing computer screens?
Hold up, where did you get this rulebook of what humans were "meant to do"?
I just get very concerned about this entire meant to do thing, because I'm pretty sure that almost everything we do in the 21st century would fall off that list. I mean, we're not meant to fly right? Go over 50 miles per hours right out? To strong alcohol? Licking toads? Viewing computer screens?
Is it a problem? Why, exactly?
Humans are "meant to"? By whom?
You should keep in mind that stigmatization and criminalization of drug use is a very recent invention. Recorded psychedelic drug use goes back many thousands of years, if not more.
Humans are "meant to"? By whom?
You should keep in mind that stigmatization and criminalization of drug use is a very recent invention. Recorded psychedelic drug use goes back many thousands of years, if not more.
>You don't need drugs to have highs and psychedelic experiences
If someone is having psychedelic experiences without drugs they'll usually want drugs to stop that..
If someone is having psychedelic experiences without drugs they'll usually want drugs to stop that..
Eh you’re never going to experience the high like you get from ecstasy. Not from sex, not from achievements, not even the birth of your child. It’s unattainable through the normal course of life. I agree humans would have a better life if they never did drugs but at the same time you are definitely missing out on unique experiences.
Sometimes productivity can be bettering yourself not necessarily increasing the size of the economy. The insights you can gain about yourself from MDMA or LSD for example are significant.
I think perhaps you are only seeing problem drug users, there are plenty of productive members of society who choose to use drugs, and you really dont understand the subject matter if you are not also lumping alcohol in with the drugs you want nuked from existence.
I think perhaps you are only seeing problem drug users, there are plenty of productive members of society who choose to use drugs, and you really dont understand the subject matter if you are not also lumping alcohol in with the drugs you want nuked from existence.
I agree with you and am confused by so many replies to your comment essentially suggesting that drugs are the only means to enjoying life or being recreationally unproductive.
I have spent some decades now enjoying life and being very enjoyably unproductive at times while remaining sober.
I have spent some decades now enjoying life and being very enjoyably unproductive at times while remaining sober.
You know, it is not surprising that someone who hasn't experimented with mind expanding drugs has a very narrow view and limited empathy for how other minds might experience the world different from themselves.
It’s pretty wild lol. I think they might be trolling.
[deleted]
Most things aren't necessary. Many things are net detrimental to society. We still allow the vast majority of them, because people are free to do what they want with their lives in this world. Just because you have kids doesn't mean that your wishes have more weight than theirs.
The biggest harms from drugs come not from the drugs themselves, but from the fact that their users and sellers have been locked out of our legal dispute resolution system. Drugs only lead to violence as long as someone is trying to stop them. If they were regulated and sold openly, with just 10% of the funding that currently goes to law enforcement to futilely try to stop them instead being diverted to addiction treatment and honest non-fear-mongering education, they would result in an order of magnitude less harm.
The biggest harms from drugs come not from the drugs themselves, but from the fact that their users and sellers have been locked out of our legal dispute resolution system. Drugs only lead to violence as long as someone is trying to stop them. If they were regulated and sold openly, with just 10% of the funding that currently goes to law enforcement to futilely try to stop them instead being diverted to addiction treatment and honest non-fear-mongering education, they would result in an order of magnitude less harm.
> If it was possible to hot patch this crap out of existence I’d be in favor of it.
I assume, of course, you feel this way about all drugs, and don't want to keep the ones you like.
Goodbye alcohol, cigarettes & coffee.
You're good with that?
I assume, of course, you feel this way about all drugs, and don't want to keep the ones you like.
Goodbye alcohol, cigarettes & coffee.
You're good with that?
Echoing the responses from other commenters here that this problem is mostly created by people trying to control what other people do with their own bodies. Its really a sad reality that our society seeks to have so much control over other peoples bodies, uses violence to try to enforce that control then cries "I dont want my kids to live in a world with this violence". Somehow killing, beating and locking people in cages fixes all our problems if we just do it enough? Not working? Just kill beat and lock more people in cages that will fix it surely.
When you do drugs with your own body, do you also drive and create accidents, forcing other on what to do with their bodies (go to hospital, cemetery)?
Right now in my country this is the situation with the rise of drugs use.
Right now in my country this is the situation with the rise of drugs use.
But that’s resolvable under other standard frameworks, specifically those covering mental impairment. You can make drinking legal, while still making drunk driving or public nuisance punishable.
That's not a problem with drugs. That's a problem of irresponsible behavior.
I agree with you. I don't agree with the tone of the parent commenter that implied that people who try to solve the problems of drugs use, somehow try to impose on others what to do with their body.
By definition making it illegal to ingest a given substance is imposing what someone can or cannot do with their body. It is a different conversation entirely than solving the problems with drug use which for the most part comes down to education and fixing broader societal issues that lead to people seeking out hard drugs in the first place. Opiate addiction is a scourge on our society and despite the seeming failures of some recent decriminalization efforts I truly dont believe continued violence and repression is the answer. I believe my stance is supported by the failure of the "war on drugs" to curb the problem despite immense resources being dedicated to it.
Yes, and X% of drug use is going to be "irresponsible". The societal burden doesn't change from phrasing.
Where would you draw the line for “drugs” that should and shouldn’t exist with your hot patch fix?
Not OP, but I'd use externalities to guide the decision. After all, it isn't the drug users partaking in the quiet of their home that we really care about. It's the junkies on the street making life worse for everyone else around them, the smugglers, the violence, the people dying from overdoses, etc.
Of course the problem is that almost all of the drugs in question have legitimate medical uses so we can't just wave a magic wand and make them go away.
I'd personally try the angle of making drug use completely non-criminal (but not the associated behavior problems that do impact other people; this is a non-trivial element), and then make dealing drugs punishable with a LOT of time.
Of course the problem is that almost all of the drugs in question have legitimate medical uses so we can't just wave a magic wand and make them go away.
I'd personally try the angle of making drug use completely non-criminal (but not the associated behavior problems that do impact other people; this is a non-trivial element), and then make dealing drugs punishable with a LOT of time.
For most people it’s “get rid of the drugs I don’t like but keep the drugs I like.”
I'm pretty sure theres a lot of people who would get rid of heroin even if they know they might enjoy the experience or "like" it.
Maybe. But what about the rest of the opioids? Then you get some kind of cancer where you need them. There is no simple solution here.
Heroin is an easy target because it is only used recreationally (in the US, at least), so we don't have any legitimate patients who'd be impacted by eliminating it.
[deleted]
I was a libertarian, and I still have some libertarian views, but I agree that my views have changed as I've gotten older and now have kids. In theory, I'm all for consenting adults doing whatever they want as long as it doesn't infringe on others, but I don't want my kids doing whatever they want or being influenced by some things.
Things that were abstract to me, like drugs, because I would never consider doing them, are more concrete now.
Our kids are still very young, but my wife has recently said things like, "I'm really afraid of our kids ending up on drugs someday," after hearing yet another story about the opioid crisis. And I was like, "Oh wow, yeah, it hasn't crossed my mind until now, but that's a really scary thought."
Things that were abstract to me, like drugs, because I would never consider doing them, are more concrete now.
Our kids are still very young, but my wife has recently said things like, "I'm really afraid of our kids ending up on drugs someday," after hearing yet another story about the opioid crisis. And I was like, "Oh wow, yeah, it hasn't crossed my mind until now, but that's a really scary thought."
> I don't want my kids doing whatever they want or being influenced by some things.
You're allowed to want or not want whatever for your children, but as soon as they become adults, their own wants for their own life override your wants for their life. In the meantime, plenty of people (all of whom are somebody's children) have chosen to try hard drugs despite the fact that they are already illegal and demonstrably dangerous. You can't store your children in a crystal sphere for their whole lives, so it's your job to teach them as best you can and let them go. You can do the best you can as a parent and they might still choose to throw their lives away, and if they do then that's on them, not on you. Their lives are their own.
You're allowed to want or not want whatever for your children, but as soon as they become adults, their own wants for their own life override your wants for their life. In the meantime, plenty of people (all of whom are somebody's children) have chosen to try hard drugs despite the fact that they are already illegal and demonstrably dangerous. You can't store your children in a crystal sphere for their whole lives, so it's your job to teach them as best you can and let them go. You can do the best you can as a parent and they might still choose to throw their lives away, and if they do then that's on them, not on you. Their lives are their own.
I have kids and recognize that they will become full grown adults and should have some agency. I want them to be informed enough to navigate the treacherous world into which they’ve been born, and given the emotional, financial, and other forms of stability so they don’t turn to drugs as a crutch. When I hear opiates I think of the medical industrial complex as the primary threat vector, not street drugs. All fully legal right now. Everyone I know who got hooked started under doctors orders. I’m not against responsible recreational drug use as they get older. I’m also not against the responsible prescription of opiates, all we’ve done to curb this is make pain treatment harder to obtain for those who need it. Either way, punishing people is not the way forward.
Yeah, as parents that's all we can do. I just want to underscore the sentiment of the original comment that - as a thought experiment - if it were possible to put the non-prescription or recreational drug genie back in the bottle somehow, that would be nice. I certainly don't know what the way forward should be.
I don't know if you intended it or not but:
"I was a libertarian until I had children" is very funny.
"I was a libertarian until I had children" is very funny.
That's pretty much it. I've seen how market mechanisms and natural consequences don't necessarily lead to my kids making sound decisions. Before having kids I envisioned myself being a Laissez-faire parent. Now my wife tells me that I need to calm down and be less authoritarian.
Same experience. Everyone is a libertarian until they meet kids and realize how impressionable and gullible even the smartest of them are at a young age -- easy prey for the advertising industry, the junk food industry, the junk media industry, and worse. Giving them total freedom at too young an age doesn't really help them be free, it helps them be slaves to someone else with more ad dollars.
Libertarianism and freedom, etc, rest upon a foundation of a well educated society with members who have enough understanding of themselves and their world to resist exploitative influences -- you are not born ready for freedom, in fact, you are born literally a baby, totally dependent for years. After years of good parenting which helps you develop self respect, values, and critical thinking, hopefully then you are ready to responsibly embrace that freedom.
Moreover, how much my perspective was changed made me realize some problems in today's society could have to do with the fact that being a parent or at least being around and being responsible for kids, was a universal fact of life for nearly all adults until very recently, but now it's possible for a young adult to barely ever encounter a child through their entire 20s and beyond. No wonder it's easy to end up with a worldview that does not account for how children can fit into it.
Libertarianism and freedom, etc, rest upon a foundation of a well educated society with members who have enough understanding of themselves and their world to resist exploitative influences -- you are not born ready for freedom, in fact, you are born literally a baby, totally dependent for years. After years of good parenting which helps you develop self respect, values, and critical thinking, hopefully then you are ready to responsibly embrace that freedom.
Moreover, how much my perspective was changed made me realize some problems in today's society could have to do with the fact that being a parent or at least being around and being responsible for kids, was a universal fact of life for nearly all adults until very recently, but now it's possible for a young adult to barely ever encounter a child through their entire 20s and beyond. No wonder it's easy to end up with a worldview that does not account for how children can fit into it.
I love the points you made, and how well you articulated them.
Not everyone is a libertarian at any point in their lives; not all of us needed to have children to realize that people (and not just ones under whichever age of majority you subscribe to) are shaped by the systems they live in. But I ask, what about those who are unable to "responsibly embrace that freedom"? What is to be done about them?
Every society needs policing, it's a matter of who's doing the policing and who's making the rules.
Most drug users aren’t junkies, they just smoke a joint in the weekend or pop a pill once a year at a festival. Or, you know, drink a beer with their mates.
Life isn’t about being productive, and humans have used substances recreationally for our entire history. It’s definitely a problem when some take it too far, though.
Life isn’t about being productive, and humans have used substances recreationally for our entire history. It’s definitely a problem when some take it too far, though.
Ban caffeine! Ban alcohol! Ban rock music!
Alcohol too?
I'd say alcohol too. I didn't drink in college, so I got a lot of questions about why not. I responded basically that I viewed it as not necessary and detrimental to reaching all of my goals - academic, financial, health, relationships, etc.
Ah, as an introvert alcohol definitely didn’t play a detrimental role in my relationships, quite the opposite actually, rather pivotal.
To be clear, I do think that drinking would've helped me to make more friends and meet more girls (some guys asked me, incredulously, how I would ever meet girls if not at a kegger). But I didn't think that it would help me to make friends with people who shared my worldview, or develop the kinds of relationships that I wanted.
While I agree with this attitude, sometimes I love to set an "exploration coin toss experiment, in which I deliberately choose something against my agency
How much coffee do you drink?
It's wonderful knowing there are people out there ready to police my body and my lifestyle! Truly, what's better than to be protected from myself, for my own good of course! (And the kids of other people, god forbids they see something bad on the streets) Freedom never felt more free, now in the year of our lord 2024.
I grew up in a totalitarian regime; to see the same authoritarian streaks being now replicated by westerners is mind blowing. They told us how to live, how to cut our hair, what to think, moment after moment, day after day, year after year after year, all for this idea of "harmonious society", a society in their image, crushing any individuality, any originality.
Is it so hard to live and let live?
I grew up in a totalitarian regime; to see the same authoritarian streaks being now replicated by westerners is mind blowing. They told us how to live, how to cut our hair, what to think, moment after moment, day after day, year after year after year, all for this idea of "harmonious society", a society in their image, crushing any individuality, any originality.
Is it so hard to live and let live?
> Is it so hard to live and let live?
Only if "live and let live" goes both ways. Junkies make it a drain on their family and social circle to support them. They also mess up the public spaces and make those unlivable (looking at you, SF). If they behaved within limits of socially acceptable behavior, I would support "live and let live" when it comes to drugs.
Only if "live and let live" goes both ways. Junkies make it a drain on their family and social circle to support them. They also mess up the public spaces and make those unlivable (looking at you, SF). If they behaved within limits of socially acceptable behavior, I would support "live and let live" when it comes to drugs.
I guarantee for every "homeless junkie" in SF or any city, there are dozens if not hundreds of functional and semi-functional substance users. Don't get me wrong, the nature of some drugs, especially heroin/fent, meth, cocaine, and alcohol, mean a significant percentage of users are going to completely fuck up their lives and the lives of those around them due to addiction.
It's weird how with illegal drugs we tend to blame the drug and the user, whereas with alcoholics, nicotine addicts, etc we tend to only blame the user. Does your opinion hold, that we should also not "live and let live" with dysfunctional homeless alcoholics? Believe me, they also make a mess of themselves and the neighborhoods they camp out in.
Anyway. Addiction is a beast. But using intoxicants to escape, augment, and/or enhance reality is a basic part of human (and animal) nature. On HN we all love to talk about incentives guiding behavior. Well when your life has been shit and likely will be shit indefinitely (due to health, social, economic, and other factors), perhaps in spite of any effort you are capable of implementing, the incentive to get some kind of enjoyment out of it anyway, regardless of the cost, is pretty damn high.
It's weird how with illegal drugs we tend to blame the drug and the user, whereas with alcoholics, nicotine addicts, etc we tend to only blame the user. Does your opinion hold, that we should also not "live and let live" with dysfunctional homeless alcoholics? Believe me, they also make a mess of themselves and the neighborhoods they camp out in.
Anyway. Addiction is a beast. But using intoxicants to escape, augment, and/or enhance reality is a basic part of human (and animal) nature. On HN we all love to talk about incentives guiding behavior. Well when your life has been shit and likely will be shit indefinitely (due to health, social, economic, and other factors), perhaps in spite of any effort you are capable of implementing, the incentive to get some kind of enjoyment out of it anyway, regardless of the cost, is pretty damn high.
> with alcoholics, nicotine addicts, etc we tend to only blame the user.
I see alcohol, nicotine, guns etc regulated heavily where I live. So yes, society does take those things seriously too.
> Does your opinion hold, that we should also not "live and let live" with dysfunctional homeless alcoholics?
Of course, if they create public nuisance.
I see alcohol, nicotine, guns etc regulated heavily where I live. So yes, society does take those things seriously too.
> Does your opinion hold, that we should also not "live and let live" with dysfunctional homeless alcoholics?
Of course, if they create public nuisance.
Cars kill and maul people, destroy infrastructure, pollute the environment, definitely mess up public spaces.
Which is why cars are heavily regulated - there are tons of rules about who gets to drive one, how that license can be revoked, a full table of punishments if you break those rules, requirements to buy insurance etc. So you are also in favor of heavy regulation of drugs then?
I won't stand for your right to become a meth head or fentanyl addict. Addiction is a dangerous disease and we should protect everyone from falling into that trap and harming themselves and others around them.
Living in a society is by definition not about granting total independence and freedom.
Living in a society is by definition not about granting total independence and freedom.
Plenty of meth heads in China they just never make it into the news. Once a whole town became famous for it.
You do not trade in your freedom for a drug free stable society. You trade in your freedom for nothing, then get the exact same shit but with a fresh lie to your face that it ain't like this.
You do not trade in your freedom for a drug free stable society. You trade in your freedom for nothing, then get the exact same shit but with a fresh lie to your face that it ain't like this.
How about the right to open loot boxes? Play gacha games? Play the lottery? Watch porn 24/7? Jerk off 24/7? Be childless? Be an alcoholic? Play games 24/7? Climb without a safety harness?
No, no, no, yes (with reservations) to the rest of them.
Well the internet is for porn, not gambling. But safety first, then teamwork so
The only one of those that I do is be childless, and I have to say I don't really get why that's in with the rest.
>and I have to say I don't really get why that's in with the rest
Because it's another one of those things that "your betters" think they control about your life, and with the attempted rollback of things like abortion rights in many places is very relevant. Also we're seeing news out of asian countries of fertility rates falling below 1 you should really expect the more authoritarian governments to say "Have a kid or have a problem" pretty soon.
Because it's another one of those things that "your betters" think they control about your life, and with the attempted rollback of things like abortion rights in many places is very relevant. Also we're seeing news out of asian countries of fertility rates falling below 1 you should really expect the more authoritarian governments to say "Have a kid or have a problem" pretty soon.
The problem with ordering me to have kids is that I'm a man and I can't do that.
They can't order you to get pregnant, but they can order you to have children.
>Addiction is a dangerous disease and we should protect everyone from falling into that trap and harming themselves and others around them.
Addiction isn't some disease that can strike randomly, the science shows that people who are already unhappy/unsatisfied/deprived are much more likely to succumb to addiction. Addressing the societal problems behind that would go a long way towards eliminating problematic addiction, and conversely banning all narcotic substances wouldn't stop those people from finding other ways to harm themselves, like alcohol, gambling or overeating to fill the emptiness inside.
Addiction isn't some disease that can strike randomly, the science shows that people who are already unhappy/unsatisfied/deprived are much more likely to succumb to addiction. Addressing the societal problems behind that would go a long way towards eliminating problematic addiction, and conversely banning all narcotic substances wouldn't stop those people from finding other ways to harm themselves, like alcohol, gambling or overeating to fill the emptiness inside.
I'm sorry, but we're never going to fix unhappiness. Nor eliminate addiction entirely. Making it difficult to access the most dangerous, addictive drugs is the only practical method of harm reduction for drug users. I don't see dead people on the sidewalks as a result of their porn addiction.
"If I don't see it, it's not a problem."
At the end of the day you have to accept some level of vice or you create a much larger and much worse vice black market.
Having mildly addictive weaker drugs available and cheap helps prevent the development of stronger and more easily smuggalable drugs.
Having mildly addictive weaker drugs available and cheap helps prevent the development of stronger and more easily smuggalable drugs.
Meth and fentanyl are not the only drugs. Most people who "do drugs", especially recreationally, are doing neither of those. Nor heroin, nor crack, nor PCP or whatever other drug is commonly associated with life ending effects.
> I won't stand for your right to become a meth head or fentanyl addict. Addiction is a dangerous disease and we should protect everyone from falling into that trap and harming themselves and others around them.
Purdue Pharma[0] has entered the chat.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opioid_epidemic_in_the_United_...
Purdue Pharma[0] has entered the chat.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opioid_epidemic_in_the_United_...
> Is it so hard to live and let live?
No, it is easy. As long as the junkies have the same courtesy towards the rest of us.
No, it is easy. As long as the junkies have the same courtesy towards the rest of us.
That's also easy: the junkies just want drugs. They don't care about the rest of us at all. If the junkies had access to the drugs they wanted, you won't see them on the streets, they will be in an institution somewhere, being high. The problems start when the junkies don't have access to their drugs...
> If the junkies had access to the drugs they wanted, you won't see them on the streets, they will be in an institution somewhere, being high.
Your proposal is that we open institutions where people can live, eat, sleep, presumably have all of their needs met, and also do as many drugs as they want all day?
There is no way this theoretical free-housing-with-drugs institution would do anything but increase the number of people abusing drugs and decrease the odds of getting them back on their feet.
Can't pay your rent this month? Well if you get addicted to drugs, you get free drugs and free everything at the Free Drugs Institution...
Want to leave the Free Drugs Institution? Oh you don't have any money to get a place of your own and getting a job while you're in the throes of addiction is hard, so you might as well stay at the Free Drugs Institution...
Every single one of these theories relies on the number of drug addicts remaining fixed, but they always ignore the fact that you can't remove all of the costs of doing drugs without dramatically increasing the number of people doing drugs, relapsing, or stuck in addiction cycles.
Your proposal is that we open institutions where people can live, eat, sleep, presumably have all of their needs met, and also do as many drugs as they want all day?
There is no way this theoretical free-housing-with-drugs institution would do anything but increase the number of people abusing drugs and decrease the odds of getting them back on their feet.
Can't pay your rent this month? Well if you get addicted to drugs, you get free drugs and free everything at the Free Drugs Institution...
Want to leave the Free Drugs Institution? Oh you don't have any money to get a place of your own and getting a job while you're in the throes of addiction is hard, so you might as well stay at the Free Drugs Institution...
Every single one of these theories relies on the number of drug addicts remaining fixed, but they always ignore the fact that you can't remove all of the costs of doing drugs without dramatically increasing the number of people doing drugs, relapsing, or stuck in addiction cycles.
I'm pretty sure the free drugs institution is in fact the street, and the drugs are only free in the sense that they're bought with the proceeds of crime. I can't speak for everyone, but the thought of going to live in a more formal institution does not increase the attractiveness of doing drugs for me (and I speak as someone who does like the occasional drug, legal or otherwise, in moderation of course). You could also imagine a path out like halfway houses or that sort of thing, but obviously it's a non-starter in the US.
> I can't speak for everyone, but the thought of going to live in a more formal institution does not increase the attractiveness of doing drugs for me
You presumably aren't the target audience.
There are a lot of people who are working hard to stay clean and keep their addictions at bay because the costs of being addicted are too high: They lose their job, their housing, their ability to support themselves, and their future.
If you offered these people a way to do drugs for free, and a place to stay for free while they did those drugs, the incentives change dramatically.
Drug addicts are also very good at lying to themselves. You'd get people telling themselves they'd only go in "for a couple days" or "for a month or two" who would end up in there for years and years.
You presumably aren't the target audience.
There are a lot of people who are working hard to stay clean and keep their addictions at bay because the costs of being addicted are too high: They lose their job, their housing, their ability to support themselves, and their future.
If you offered these people a way to do drugs for free, and a place to stay for free while they did those drugs, the incentives change dramatically.
Drug addicts are also very good at lying to themselves. You'd get people telling themselves they'd only go in "for a couple days" or "for a month or two" who would end up in there for years and years.
Oh, I've been locked in a hospital before; I wouldn't really say that I'm a stranger to addiction. I think the job was the main stressor that caused the addiction. A layoff later and I feel much better. Being chained to that job for healthcare and housing nearly killed me via a few means.
Or...they need money to fuel their addiction which is simultaneously preventing them from finding gainful employment.
That's a huge over simplification IMO! Addiction problems often come with personality traits that correlate being jobless and miserable. As humans I believe we should solve these problems logically, holistically with love and empathy.
The employability of an alcoholic increases dramatically after recovering from alcoholism.
Just today I read a news story about a junkie who went out in the street in his neighborhood and started shooting at people. Every bit of evidence suggests he was high as a kite. Luckily he didn't injure anyone, just did some property damage putting bullet holes in cars. He ended his existence by taking shots at the police when they showed up.
Some guy stoned out of his mind on weed may be harmless, but this is not universally true with all drugs and all people. And your idea lacks an explanation for who will pay for all these free drugs. What's in it for me, as a productive member of society, to finance those drug habits?
Some guy stoned out of his mind on weed may be harmless, but this is not universally true with all drugs and all people. And your idea lacks an explanation for who will pay for all these free drugs. What's in it for me, as a productive member of society, to finance those drug habits?
I mean just today I read a new story about a dude that was high on political outrage and went and shot up a school, caused a lot of damage and death. Sounds like politics is pretty harmful.
What's in it for me as a member of the political mainstream if we allow these dangerous political views that upset our social harmony?
What's in it for me as a member of the political mainstream if we allow these dangerous political views that upset our social harmony?
Which institution? Most homeless shelters and mental hospitals don't allow recreational drug use or possession on the premises, and I doubt those policies would change even if drugs were legalized. And most drug addicts can't hold down a stable job to pay for private housing regardless of legal status.
I generally think legalization is a good idea. But junkies are always going to be a burden who live on the margins of society and survive by leeching off the rest of us (crime, welfare, donations).
I generally think legalization is a good idea. But junkies are always going to be a burden who live on the margins of society and survive by leeching off the rest of us (crime, welfare, donations).
I would be ok with people wrecking one's health on the condition that it means they automatically lose any rights to the state's help (health care, housing, any kind of direct cash handouts etc.). I don't think we should other people's stupidity. What's more, it creates a moral hazard (it's ok to wreck my own life, as the nanny state will come to rescue me anyway).
So paying for their prison time isn't a direct cash handout to the prison industrial complex?
As for your point of view I really have to reply with a more aggressive "Too fucking bad, you're paying one way or another". I run into too many people with your point of view that if you just pretend like this wrecked human doesn't exist that they immediately vanish from the reality in which we exist and no longer present a problem to anyone.
As for your point of view I really have to reply with a more aggressive "Too fucking bad, you're paying one way or another". I run into too many people with your point of view that if you just pretend like this wrecked human doesn't exist that they immediately vanish from the reality in which we exist and no longer present a problem to anyone.
That’s a very fine line to walk. The same reasoning could be applied to speeding (actively endangering others), overeating (actively endangering yourself), hunting, snowboarding, skydiving (or any other activity which increases your likelihood of having and accident and hence burdening the health care system beyond the national average).
I agree, but we should start having this discussion nonetheless. As is now, the state is encouraging dangerous and reckless behaviours, which is contrary of its intentions.
Well sure but then you can virtually forget about humanity's best cheat - collective universal health insurance. There has to be a balance between live and let live and just living off other people
One just needs to look at the history of drugs in America to come to that conclusion. People often do crimes they wouldn't do if they weren't hyped up on drugs -- and that affects people who don't do drugs.
Now the question is how do we police it? Throwing drug users in prison doesn't seem like a good idea anymore. We really want to go after the dealers, the people who get users hooked and strung out.
Now the question is how do we police it? Throwing drug users in prison doesn't seem like a good idea anymore. We really want to go after the dealers, the people who get users hooked and strung out.
So there are two different things that need to be looked at.
First order crimes. For example drinking, then getting in a crash would be a first order crime of alcohol use.
A second order crime could be something like stealing money to buy your next beer, or running an illegal bootlegging operation.
In deciding how to police the issue, the last thing you want to consider is punishment, and the first you want to consider is harm reduction.
Going after dealers just doesn't fucking work. We've been spending billions on it, and in doing so we have a non-stop line of dealers and manufactures making more deadly and addictive concoctions every day. The more you bust the dealers, the more the price goes up, the more stealing occurs by the users, the and more corruption of law enforcement by the dealers paying people off because of the huge sums of money involved happen. As they say "There was a war on drugs, drugs won".
First order crimes. For example drinking, then getting in a crash would be a first order crime of alcohol use.
A second order crime could be something like stealing money to buy your next beer, or running an illegal bootlegging operation.
In deciding how to police the issue, the last thing you want to consider is punishment, and the first you want to consider is harm reduction.
Going after dealers just doesn't fucking work. We've been spending billions on it, and in doing so we have a non-stop line of dealers and manufactures making more deadly and addictive concoctions every day. The more you bust the dealers, the more the price goes up, the more stealing occurs by the users, the and more corruption of law enforcement by the dealers paying people off because of the huge sums of money involved happen. As they say "There was a war on drugs, drugs won".
Agreeing on this one. State should sell any kind of addictive substance, which would immediately yield benefits:
1. (Large parts of) Funding of organized crime would dry up and the state would get extra income via tax
2. Addicts know they can get their fix and hence can take up regular work
3. Substances would be cleaner and thus safer for consumption (easing the burden of the health care system)
Not saying that there are no downsides to this, but the downsides have to be weighed against the upsides and in my book the upsides outweigh the downsides.
1. (Large parts of) Funding of organized crime would dry up and the state would get extra income via tax
2. Addicts know they can get their fix and hence can take up regular work
3. Substances would be cleaner and thus safer for consumption (easing the burden of the health care system)
Not saying that there are no downsides to this, but the downsides have to be weighed against the upsides and in my book the upsides outweigh the downsides.
> Going after dealers just doesn't fucking work.
I may get downvoted for this, but...
I for one believe that drug dealers are still the scum of society using people's own biology for profit. This isn't any different than the Sackler's. Why do you want to normalize drug dealing?
I may get downvoted for this, but...
I for one believe that drug dealers are still the scum of society using people's own biology for profit. This isn't any different than the Sackler's. Why do you want to normalize drug dealing?
So the company that makes Doritos is a bunch of drug dealers?
You can hate them as much as you want but you don't solve problems as long as the incentive structure exists for it.
You can hate them as much as you want but you don't solve problems as long as the incentive structure exists for it.
And you do that by ruining the market, by offering free drugs, let the cartells go unemployed.
We've tried basically everything else, let's try this.
We take a thousand square miles of BLM land in the middle of the desert, and turn it into freedrugcity, and ship anyone who wants free drugs there.
Probably cheaper in the long run.
We take a thousand square miles of BLM land in the middle of the desert, and turn it into freedrugcity, and ship anyone who wants free drugs there.
Probably cheaper in the long run.
Why shouldn't the state provide free drugs or drugs replacements? This way the state (the society) owns the problem AND the solution, and you don't even need tax payers money since you just erase most of the illegal income sources of the organized crime. The state could also push rehabs, controlling the addiction problem, literally everybody wins, minus the criminals.. Free drugs. Free money. Happier, healthier empathetic society. Or in one word - Netherlands
I believe that already happens every September in North Nevada...
Free as long as you spend 20k on gear and food and tickets and… drugs
As long as there's a fence I'd be willing to try this.
Lets put this in the "Things that sound like good ideas in practice but don't actually work in reality.
So is this a place are interned to and can't leave easily? Well, great, you've created a drug terrorism ghetto.
Is this a place people can freely come and go to? Well, it will likely be "too successful" for a number of the hard anti drug politicians, remember this is supposed to be a failure to show how bad the moral failings of people that even thing about drugs end up in. That and when said politicians kids get caught there they'll have the entire place destroyed.
Also doing drugs probably doesn't mean "crime free for all here", so, um, who's policing the place?
So is this a place are interned to and can't leave easily? Well, great, you've created a drug terrorism ghetto.
Is this a place people can freely come and go to? Well, it will likely be "too successful" for a number of the hard anti drug politicians, remember this is supposed to be a failure to show how bad the moral failings of people that even thing about drugs end up in. That and when said politicians kids get caught there they'll have the entire place destroyed.
Also doing drugs probably doesn't mean "crime free for all here", so, um, who's policing the place?
Just finished reading through all the replies to me. Honestly all these responses just make me double down on my love for free market capitalism and selfish individualism (non destructive, ahimsa like).
Rest assured, I will continue doing my best to ensure my family and I are never affected by any of this, and I don’t really need to feel bad either considering how much others are okay with just letting things degrade almost by a factor of 9-1. It’s also true that 10% of people account for 90% of contributions so I’m glad to be in the 10%.
I’ll keep focused on my business, skills as an SWE, and money management. That’s ultimately what keeps me and my family safe, happy, and open to new and awesome experiences. I wish everyone the best for themselves.
Really eye opening, honestly grateful. Cheers!
Rest assured, I will continue doing my best to ensure my family and I are never affected by any of this, and I don’t really need to feel bad either considering how much others are okay with just letting things degrade almost by a factor of 9-1. It’s also true that 10% of people account for 90% of contributions so I’m glad to be in the 10%.
I’ll keep focused on my business, skills as an SWE, and money management. That’s ultimately what keeps me and my family safe, happy, and open to new and awesome experiences. I wish everyone the best for themselves.
Really eye opening, honestly grateful. Cheers!
You know... I understand people "want" to drink coffee and all. (Not me)
But the older I get, the more I realize this habit isn't necessary. It's not beneficial to society, and if someone feels the need for coffee, they should really reconsider their lifestyle and find something more productive to do.
If there was a way to completely eliminate the culture of coffee consumption, I'd support it. Might even take action myself if I could. I don't want my kids to grow up in a world obsessed with coffee.
There are so many better and healthier alternatives available. And yes, I understand not everyone has it easy. I certainly didn't, coming from a 3rd world country, but I still chose other options. That's no excuse, though. It's honestly quite demeaning and foolish when well-off people treat coffee drinking as something essential.
But the older I get, the more I realize this habit isn't necessary. It's not beneficial to society, and if someone feels the need for coffee, they should really reconsider their lifestyle and find something more productive to do.
If there was a way to completely eliminate the culture of coffee consumption, I'd support it. Might even take action myself if I could. I don't want my kids to grow up in a world obsessed with coffee.
There are so many better and healthier alternatives available. And yes, I understand not everyone has it easy. I certainly didn't, coming from a 3rd world country, but I still chose other options. That's no excuse, though. It's honestly quite demeaning and foolish when well-off people treat coffee drinking as something essential.
A more apt comparison would be alcohol vs illegal drugs.
Coffee vs meth or heroin does even come close to ringing true. What are the individual or societal costs to consuming coffee? Both approach zero.
Coffee vs meth or heroin does even come close to ringing true. What are the individual or societal costs to consuming coffee? Both approach zero.
There may not be societal costs in the consuming country, but there are certainly negative externalities to the people/countries that produce the coffee beans
I guess I don't consider this a legit argument. You could point to negative externalities that are the result of literally everything humans produce/consume.
But if we want to use that metric, OK. I would venture a guess that the production of coffee yields a heck of a lot less suffering than the production of cocaine, heroin or meth. Any far fewer people consume the latter.
But if we want to use that metric, OK. I would venture a guess that the production of coffee yields a heck of a lot less suffering than the production of cocaine, heroin or meth. Any far fewer people consume the latter.
Also to further your point: consider blood diamonds, mining of toxic substances, lead batteries, plastic in the oceans, etc.
Yes! These are all things that rely on the subjugation and abuse of other human and are bad for our earth-spaceship
I don't know, the guy in Kona running the coffee farm seemed pretty happy. And the coffee was great (and I typically dislike coffee! It was that good...)
In any case, legal production can be regulated in ways that illegal crops cannot. It's hard to draw a legitimate comparison.
In any case, legal production can be regulated in ways that illegal crops cannot. It's hard to draw a legitimate comparison.
Alcohol would be a great comparison. Alcohol causes more deaths (and presumably human suffering) than illegal drugs. Only recently has the Opioid crisis caused a dent in these stats.
[deleted]
Even sugar would be a better comparison than coffee.