If you want to stop the flow of hyperpotent opioids like fentanyl and nitazenes, legalise opium and heroin. As drugs, the only advantage of these compounds is that their potency makes them easier and cheaper to smuggle. I've asked a lot of opioid addicts about this and not one of them has described an all-things-equal preference for these drugs. I'm sure some people do exist, but they're likely a very small minority. Most people don't even know what they're using, they just take whatever's available to get a fix.
This is a completely artificial problem, created by the war on drugs. Just like the waves of PMMA deaths in europe caused by safrole seizures. Western nations have no one to blame for this but themselves.
vlovich123 1 hours ago [-]
We did legalise opium by way of oxycontin and I'm not sure that helped reduce the scope of the problem. Arguably a lot more people got hooked on opium than ever before because something legalized has less stigma attached and is more easily accessible. Society has waffled repeatedly on the legality of opium and the effects of opium are a bit different than less destructive narcotics where legalization makes more sense.
gedy 1 hours ago [-]
> Arguably a lot more people got hooked on opium than ever before because something legalized has less stigma attached
Growing up in the 70s and 80s, I know that by the 80s heroin had a bad stigma attached to it even by other drug users, and it was rarely seen in the circles I knew. Coke, pot and meth did not have that at the time.
slothtrop 1 hours ago [-]
Oxycontin was overprescribed for pain, it's not available for recreational use.
Possibly it's just too potent for legalization to be viable.
jdietrich 1 hours ago [-]
Oxycodone (Oxycontin) has similar potency to diamorphine (heroin) and is ~2 orders of magnitude less potent than fentanyl.
This rings true with my experiences. The people who I've known to become addicted usually started with something prescribed and then graduated to heroin. When heroin became harder to find, smuggle in, or too expensive, fentanyl happily stepped up to meet demand.
Addicts literally carry around fent testing kits so they can _avoid_ this synthetic opioid.
flustercan 2 hours ago [-]
>Addicts literally carry around fent testing kits so they can _avoid_ this synthetic opioid.
Its my understanding that heroin and street pharmaceuticals aren't really around anymore. Its ALL fentanyl now and everyone knows it.
dylan604 2 hours ago [-]
> Addicts literally carry around fent testing kits so they can _avoid_ this synthetic opioid.
Choosy addicts choose...is something I never thought I'd read. I'd suggest they weren't addicting right if they are choosy. When you can find your fix of choice, you just fix with what's available.
If your comment were accurate, fent sales would plummet and the problem would fix itself. This is clearly not the case.
snailmailstare 28 minutes ago [-]
Are you channeling Bob Saget?
slothtrop 1 hours ago [-]
Is opium considered the least harsh/dangerous variant?
coliveira 4 hours ago [-]
Drug trafficking has little to do with the border issue, since you cannot really do anything about it when you have thousands of miles of border to secure. The issue here is how much corruption exists in the US and how little it does against the really big criminals who control traffic.
The justice system concentrates only on putting small vendors behind bars (usually black people), but they're not the ones making real profits. I guarantee you don't know any big drug traffickers operating inside the US that were sent to jail. When you hear about big bosses it is always some guy outside the US, but the ones operating inside the country are all protected in one way or another. They're all laughing and buying mansions all over the country. This corruption is what the US should be concentrating on if they want to stop drug trafficking.
verdverm 2 hours ago [-]
Most drugs enter the country through legal ports of entry, not in the gaps. Most drugs are also brought back across by US citizens (~90%)
So, they were half-right since that's tantamount to "corruption in the US"
verdverm 2 minutes ago [-]
I don't see corruption, I see supply & demand and "enterprising" people.
The war on drugs has shown that focussing on the supply side has done little to solve the problem. There will be new ways to smuggle or new drugs to catch in the drag net while the demand remains.
The question then is, why is the demand for drugs so high?
Retric 2 hours ago [-]
Thousands of miles of border isn’t actually the issue here. How many people are crossing the Korean DMZ each year without South Korea noticing?
Adjusted for population size and it’s roughly half the length of the US/Mexico land border and it’s designed for military incursion via tanks not just people in a pickup truck.
Similarly the amount of money spent on inspecting imports is well under 1% of the total value of said imports. It’s possible to inspect literally every package crossing the border, we just don’t want to.
beart 53 minutes ago [-]
There is no commerce crossing the DMZ. There are no tourists crossing the DMZ. Hundreds of millions of people cross the southern US border every year. You cannot compare these two borders in any realistic way.
Edit: also, landmines
Retric 51 minutes ago [-]
They do have cross broader trade and movement of people. I think SK is NK’s 4th largest trading partner right now, but there’s also some movement of people.
But that stuff is independent of length which is why I mentioned trade separately.
0cf8612b2e1e 1 hours ago [-]
I do not think it makes sense to scale national borders based on population size. It is what it is, you can choose to invest resources on the entire length, but there is no mathematical averaging out.
For anyone else that was curious, the Korean DMZ is 150 miles long. US Mexico border is 1950.
Retric 1 hours ago [-]
50 million people each paying 100$ in taxes can’t get as much done as 350 million people handing over 100$.
On the other hand suggesting there’s suddenly massive issues with coordination because a country is 7x the size just doesn’t make a lot of sense.
PS: 160 mi, but that should be obvious from my comment and the relevant population sizes.
coliveira 1 hours ago [-]
Your comparison doesn't even make sense. SK and NK have no relation and no border crossings. It is the easiest border to patrol.
Retric 54 minutes ago [-]
Border crossings are independent of length. But they actually do have trade, and even people crossing the border.
Ending the war on drugs would be a wise choice.
Treat drug addicts as people with a health issue instead of making the entire society pay for it due to the fact that the druggies pay the cartels to smuggle drugs to them and all the consequences of the drug wars...
Tariffs are just taxes that will destroy the economy.
pton_xd 5 hours ago [-]
Portland tried that in 2020 by decriminalizing drug possession.
They reversed course and recently passed a law to recriminalize possession. I think its the right move. Downtown turned into a very unpleasant place.
drpfenderson 5 hours ago [-]
Seemingly, the major failure there was having the one part (decriminalization) without the other - crucial - part (treatment and support).
The support and treatment structures have remained essentially unchanged since Measure 110 passed, with holdups to funding and logistics at almost every level of the state's government. Oregon was already ranked almost dead last in addiction treatment, and that hasn't budged. I can't see how it would work without this other critical piece.
Also worth noting is that research has found no association with with Measure 110 and crime, and crime has been steadily falling since the measure was passed. (along with most other metro areas in the USA) https://www.opb.org/article/2024/01/24/portland-crime-violen...
culi 5 hours ago [-]
It wasn't Portland. Voters in Oregon as a whole passed Measure 110 in 2020 that replaced criminal penalties for possession of small amounts of drugs with $100 fines.
Then in April of 2024 House Bill 4002 made possession once again a misdemeanor but kept most of the other provisions of Measure 110 and still focuses on "deflecting" people who possess out of the criminal justice system and into treatment programs.
So Measure 110 is still mostly in effect. They just made it so you do in fact have something on your record if you're caught with possession.
throw0101a 5 hours ago [-]
> It wasn't Portland. Voters in Oregon as a whole passed Measure 110 in 2020 that replaced criminal penalties for possession of small amounts of drugs with $100 fines.
Unless you're forced to do something to deal with the addiction then there's probably not much point for this kind of thing:
> Starting September 1, 2024, possession of hard drugs became classified as a criminal misdemeanor outside of the regular A-E categorization system, carrying a sentence of up to 6 months of jail, which may be waived if the convictee enters into mandatory drug treatment.[8][9]
Of course one needs to keep at it, otherwise things fall apart:
> Funding ebbed still more recently due to new national budget pressures, which undercut efforts encouraging addicts into rehabilitation programs. The results of “disinvestment” and “a freezing in [their] response” led Goulão to state that “what we have today no longer serves as an example to anyone.”
> Speaking more quantitatively, drug users in treatment declined from 1,150 to 352 (from 2015 to 2021) as funding dropped in 2012 from $82.7 million to $17.4 million. Budget pressures and the apparent desire to cut immediate program costs of drug addiction (distinct from the total societal cost of drug addiction) led to program decentralization and the use of NGOs. Anecdotal evidence of a fragmenting, even breaking, system abounds: Demoralized police no longer cite addicts to get them into treatment and at least some NGOs view the effort as less about treatment and more about framing lifetime drug use as a right.
The other question is does the US have the resources (that people can afford) to have folks go to treatment.
be_erik 5 hours ago [-]
Decriminalization is step the first step. The obvious result is going to be that a problem _sometimes_ hidden becomes more prevalent. What failed in the Portland experiment was a lack of stable housing coupled with a public space system that was never designed for use by those afflicted by addiction.
The deterioration of our public spaces is not caused by our drug epidemic, it's the logical outcome when the state fails to provide services to the most vulnerable. People literally have nowhere else to go.
dylan604 1 hours ago [-]
Decriminalizing possession is one thing, but if the selling market is still illegal you really haven't done much other than keeping the jails a bit less full
EA-3167 5 hours ago [-]
Imagine that you're a politician trying to keep your job ahead of an election, and your opponent points to your policy making the lives of your constituents miserable. You understand that the argument you're making here would be political suicide, you'd be replaced, and the policy would be reversed.
How would you sell this in a way that could get you re-elected?
robotnikman 1 hours ago [-]
A good reason why every leadership position should have term limits. If you have no chance for re-election, might as well go ahead and put in policies which may hurt in the short term but are overall great in the long term.
inglor_cz 57 minutes ago [-]
Do you expect such development in the case of the current president?
EA-3167 37 minutes ago [-]
Yeah I'm certainly in favor of term limits for almost every position, even if in some cases they'd be very generous limits. That sort of thing isn't a one-shot fix though, there's always the NEXT job to think about. "I'm a mayor for 4 years, limited by law, but I'll be governor next, and then a house member, then senator, etc." Or it might be about work in the private sector that comes after political life... incentives have a way of adapting themselves to this sort of remedy.
It's still a good idea, but term limits only really work as part of a much broader program of oversight and control over the incentives of politicians.
gosub100 2 hours ago [-]
Imagine you're a politician trying to keep your job and during your term you magically solved a crisis (somehow, just pretend one of their 'plans' actually worked).
How would you persuade voters to NOT vote for that other guy, now that the problem is solved? How would you "secure more funding" for x,y, or z now that z doesn't exist? If you eradicate suffering, you can't blame the other side for it anymore. It's political suicide.
EA-3167 2 hours ago [-]
I don't think that's really a factor, because realistically the world is FAR from having any form of suffering eradicated. At best, most of what we can do is a good faith attempt to minimize suffering, and even that's incredibly difficult to do at scale.
aylmao 4 hours ago [-]
I haven't been to Portland since 2018, but I have been to and seen LA and San Francisco downtowns. They didn't decriminalize, but their downtowns are pretty unpleasant too.
I wonder to what degree Portland is a product of its local policy (like this decriminalization/recriminalization) vs the national trends that are seen across the USA.
aerostable_slug 1 hours ago [-]
One might argue they de facto decriminalized drug consumption and personal-usage-level possession in LA and SF.
bdcravens 5 hours ago [-]
The "war on drugs" has been waged for more than 40+ years. It seems like it takes more than a few years, most of which was during the worst public health crisis in generations, to succeed.
Most incarceration is about helping those who aren't the ones suffering (evidenced by "... a very unpleasant place"). Not attacking you for your comment, just pointing out the paradigm we as a society have.
slothtrop 1 hours ago [-]
Decriminalization seems to lead to negative outcomes in every respect, including prostitution. I expect legalization is what's required as that would allow for optimal regulation and tax.
You could go the way of East Asia. That would be very difficult, but easy access to narcotics could lead to disastrous results.
tayo42 5 hours ago [-]
decriminalizing is a half assed way to try to help. The only issue with drug use isnt that you'll get arrested for possesion.
You need access to safe and clean drugs. Support systems need to be in place. The look of downtown isn't the only way to measure success. How many people aren't dying because there isn't a stigma around drug use, where clean and predictable drug doses (like alcohol) can be had, drug testing kits, safe pieces to use with, safe places to be etc
fortylove 5 hours ago [-]
This sentiment peaked in popularity in urban areas ~4 years ago. Since then I've noticed support for this position slowly eroding, and my hypothesis is that the general population has slowly had enough interactions with someone who is on fent.
throw0101a 5 hours ago [-]
> Tariffs are just taxes that will destroy the economy.
Tariffs are taxes and subsidies. See "Tariffs Give U.S. Steelmakers a Green Light to Lift Prices":
> Executives from U.S. steel companies were enthusiastic backers of the 2018 tariffs and have urged Trump to deploy them again in his second term. They have called for the elimination of tariff exemptions and duty-free import quotas, saying those carve-outs allow unfairly low-price steel to enter the U.S. and undermine the steel market.
[…]
> Higher prices for imported steel are often followed by domestic suppliers raising their own prices, which then get passed through supply chains, manufacturing executives said. For consumers already reeling from rising retail prices and inflation, pricier steel and aluminum could further lift costs for durable goods like appliances and automobiles, as well as consumer products with aluminum packaging, such as canned beverages.
> “The issue with tariffs is everybody raises their prices, even the domestics,” said Ralph Hardt, owner of Belleville International, a Pennsylvania-based manufacturer of valves and components used in the energy and defense industries. Steel and aluminum are Belleville’s largest expenses.
So tariffs are taxes in the sense that consumers are paying higher prices. But they are subsidies in that domestic companies don't have as much pressure on prices and can get more money.
So if you want to help a particular industry might as well just go with subsidies directly instead of the taxation add-on as well.
bdcravens 5 hours ago [-]
This is something that is ignored: the companies not affected by tariffs will raise their prices. Any intimation that they will keep prices the same is disingenuous. Leaving money on the table would be anti-capitalist.
tayo42 5 hours ago [-]
People making decisions around drugs have no experience with drugs and users.
They just get hysterical information about the extreme cases and extrapolate to everyone.
People just need to be supported through hard times and experimentation phases so they come out the other side.
So many people eventually get clean, stop using and get back to having productive lives.
I saw so many unnecessary deaths, friends with potential, die, because we don't want to help and support them. Overdoses are not needed.These aren't street people that make up so much of the hysteria, just middle class normal people that had their life go a certain way.
People don't want fentanyl or fake drugs in general. Access to drugs that can be measured are safe. Opiods are safe, doctors give fentanyl to patients constantly, and you don't come out of surgeries a opioid addict because you got a dose one times.
The hysterical people need to learn there place in the discussion on drugs and get to the side.
bdcravens 5 hours ago [-]
> People making decisions around drugs have no experience with drugs and users.
Just wait until you see who's making decisions about women's health.
tayo42 5 hours ago [-]
Were subjected to a tyranny of "experts" :(
1vuio0pswjnm7 5 hours ago [-]
By citing seizure numbers and mentioning nothing else about each respective border, this article and other news reports I am seeing seem to imply or suggest that that seizures are a direct representation of how much contraband is crossing a border. That's possible. It's also possible that seizures are a representation, at least in part, of something else. For example, the success of border authorities in detecting and confiscating contraband. Authorities on one border might be more more successful than authorities on another border. The frequency and amounts of seizures might not be indicative of the total amount of contraband that is crossing a particular border undetected. The seizure rate might be related to geographical or other characteristics of the border, for example.
janalsncm 26 minutes ago [-]
It is possible the data is biased by enforcement ability. However, the difference is huge. Last year only 0.2% of fentanyl was seized at the northern border and 98% at the southern border.
badosu 2 hours ago [-]
It's revealing how many sub designs they found on south american jungles, but few actually found in traffic or on the targets coast.
aylmao 4 hours ago [-]
I agree. I'd expand this by noting this doesn't only apply to borders, but the whole territory too. The article does note:
> [...] the trade in other chemicals involved in the manufacturing of fentanyl - some of which can have legitimate purposes - remain uncontrolled, as those involved in the trade find new ways to evade the law.
One has to imagine there's local manufacturing of fentanyl too, and one has to wonder the magnitude of it.
bdcravens 5 hours ago [-]
One thing this article doesn't cover is WHO is doing the trafficking, and in most cases, it's Americans.
Also who is coordinating this trafficking in the US? They make it believe that there is only the border smuggling and the retail sale problem. From the US point of view, NOBODY is handling and managing the drug business in US soil.
aylmao 5 hours ago [-]
> Despite this, the trade in other chemicals involved in the manufacturing of fentanyl - some of which can have legitimate purposes - remain uncontrolled, as those involved in the trade find new ways to evade the law.
From a purely economic perspective, it just sounds like local production will replace foreign imports if the US does manage to stop fentanyl from entering from abroad.
janalsncm 58 minutes ago [-]
According to CBP, last year there were only 43 pounds of fentanyl seized on the northern border. The problem is almost entirely a Southern border problem. So it seems crazy to punish Canada. Also India is responsible for many precursors but are not named.
twic 5 hours ago [-]
> Despite this, the trade in other chemicals involved in the manufacturing of fentanyl - some of which can have legitimate purposes - remain uncontrolled, as those involved in the trade find new ways to evade the law.
What are these chemicals, and what are their other uses? Which of them don't have any other uses?
Imposing tariffs, further impoverishing the poor, in order to not show compassion for your own citizens? That doesn’t just sound backwards, it just is. The fentanyl crisis is just being used as an excuse to impose the tariffs. By now it’s well known that Trump desperately wants to proof his professor wrong and if the world has to burn, so be it.
tivert 5 hours ago [-]
> By now it’s well known that Trump desperately wants to proof his professor wrong
By now it it's well known that globalization is for a fantasy world that doesn't exist, and people should stop listening so much to economics professors. Trade barriers need to go up to re-orient things. Unfortunately, Trump is unlikely to do it competently.
janalsncm 17 minutes ago [-]
A 10% tariff on China won’t stop globalization. Even an 100% tariff wouldn’t. American goods aren’t 10% more expensive, a lot of them are 10x more expensive.
Look for American made kitchen knives. You will be lucky to spend less than $2k on a block of Made in USA knives. Meanwhile you can get a pretty good set made in China for under $200.
If you wanted American companies to compete, you would need a 10x tariff to make that $200 knife set cost $2000.
spiderfarmer 5 hours ago [-]
You guys tried everything but the things other countries that do well are doing. But hey, let’s try to stop globalization as a single country.
motohagiography 4 hours ago [-]
it makes more sense when you look at the LD-50 of fentanyl vs. any other synthetic substance, and it's hard to see it as anything other than a WMD.
it's a security issue and municipalities and public health exploit it to "manage" for increased bureaucracy and funding. whenever they want more federal or state money, they turn the crisis tap on or off. public agencies all benefit from rising poverty, and where they can't create it with lax enforcement, they import it.
stopping the flow of drugs cuts off a huge source of bureaucratic crisis leverage, and local political corruption funding, that both poison the entire system of institutions. it's difficult to find a coherent moral case against a radical crackdown on fentanyl for those reasons.
abimbostrawman 1 hours ago [-]
[dead]
blastonico 6 hours ago [-]
I don't like Trump but I have to admit he's doing a great job here.
dgfitz 5 hours ago [-]
He is doing what he said he would do, hard to argue with that.
Hard to say at the moment if anything he is doing is "great" or not. I choose to observe instead of emoting about it. Half the world is convinced the sky is falling, and half are cheering.
I'm the person in the middle of the (probably) not-overlapping venn diagram.
ks2048 5 hours ago [-]
I don't think it's hard to argue with "He is doing what he said he would do".
He said on day one he'd lower grocery prices. He said he had nothing to do with Project 2025 and on day one he signed a stack of executive ordered hand written by the Heritage Foundation. etc.
_DeadFred_ 5 hours ago [-]
Don't forget he said the Ukraine was would already be over as well. MAGA has moved the goalpost so far from 'get away from being warmongers on day one' to 'Annex Canada, annex Greenland, go to war with Panama, send troops to take out the Cartels'. Truly 1984 stuff going on.
dgfitz 53 minutes ago [-]
I must be the only dumbass that sees billionaires running the world and compare things to atlas shrugged instead of 1984. Hell, Brave New World fits better than 1984.
dgfitz 1 hours ago [-]
And yet Guantanamo Bay is still open.
Yeah, he hasn’t done everything he claimed, and I imagine he won’t, most politicians don’t. He was very clear about all the things he has done so far, and this is hard to argue.
Making a bad-faith argument about one specific point doesn’t negate the argument.
ge96 5 hours ago [-]
Project 2025 is crazy when you read off the items
53 minutes ago [-]
bdcravens 5 hours ago [-]
I think it will take several months to know if that's the case, since we don't know (or choose to ignore) the ramifications for the economy as a whole.
_DeadFred_ 5 hours ago [-]
In the inland northwest we are sending a lot more fent/mexi's north than are coming south. BC bud was an issue...back before Washington legalized.
Also the deals announced were deals already done prior to this administration.
TwoNineA 5 hours ago [-]
19kg of Fentanyl got smuggled from Canada into the US in 2024, not even 1% of the total. Yet POTUS decides to impose a 25% tarrif on all canadian goods because of it. Even if it was a bluff, 100+ years friendship, solidarity and good will was just flushed down the toilet and it will probably take decades to fix. But hey, good job!
Tell me again how good of a friend Canada is to US.
People freak out about Trump's proposed tariffs as if other countries do not already have tariffs on US.
aylmao 4 hours ago [-]
Worth noting, Canada doesn't actually charge 270% tariffs on milk. The base tariff for milk is 7.5%:
> Canada’s whole system is built to avoid a surplus -- hence its name, “supply management.” [...] Within quota, the tariff is 7.5%. Over-quota milk faces a 241% tariff. [1]
I also have to agree with Derek Holt here:
> Derek Holt, an economist at Scotiabank, said in a research note. “Better judgment would question whether an entire trading relationship needs to be jeopardized in order to appeal to dairy farmers in Wisconsin.” [1]
A country that tears up an agreement it renegotiated and signed four years earlier over spurious claims* isn't a friend and isn't to be trusted.
Sure, the dairy carveouts - which the US and Trump agreed to, again, just four years ago - are stupid artifacts of a farmers lobby group, but threatening to blow up our economy on a whim makes the US unfriendly and untrustworthy. Doing all that while the leader repeatedly says they want to annex our country by economic force and make us a state turns things from untrustworthy to adversary.
If trump wanted free trade to end, he may have gotten it, because a huge amount of the trust that underlay the north american economy is gone now. If you're cheering that on because the number of eggs your dairy farmers are able to export is under a quota, then I can only say your point of view is far too limited.
* The effectively null amounts of fentanyl & migrants crossing the border.
fooster 2 hours ago [-]
Even if those numbers are true, you do understand that is a very different situation than 25% tariff across the board, and 10% on energy for completely disingenuous reasons.
If it wasn't for oil, natural gas, power Canada would be at a trade surplus with the US. Oil and Natural gas are not things are not easy to find replacement US based sources.
How do you know the exact figure of fentanyl smuggled into the US from CAN?
I doubt even the cartels could give you an exact figure as they aren't the only ones smuggling the drugs or the precursors.
Are you saying we only intercepted 19kg? How wouldn't that make sense to you considering the disparity of population density at the borders, as well as the infrastructure and staffing at each border??
Canada already Tariffs many products coming from the USA, many even exceeding 200%. The political theater and kindergarten understanding of geo-politics would explain your take on "100 years of friendship flushed down the toilet" lol.
senectus1 4 hours ago [-]
a great job of what?
honestly all i see is incompetence and creating situations only to solve them and claim victory, while letting some loon terrorize and try to dismantle the bureaucracy
aredox 5 hours ago [-]
Mexico and Canada agreed to do something... They were already doing with Biden.
"Hook, line and sinker", heh?
blargthorwars 5 hours ago [-]
Mexico agreed to an additional 10,000 troops.
bdcravens 5 hours ago [-]
The question is was their level of support already maxed out without the threat of tariffs? Previous agreements were already pretty substantial. (And fly in the face of a conspiracy of an "open border" where both sides are just looking the other way)
It's amazing the US started a trade war over 74,000 deaths from Fentanyl when heart disease causes 10x more deaths.
fngjdflmdflg 5 hours ago [-]
Last I looked at this (in a different context, a few years ago,) I read that most heart disease deaths are essentially natural deaths. Someone has to die from something and heart disease is one of those things. (Eating worse could perhaps be making people die earlier by one or two years on average.)
Some data (not exactly the same I found last time, but seems to still be accurate as I recalled it):
>About 82% of people who die of coronary heart disease are 65 or older[0]
See also the CDC's list of deaths by cause by age group:
For 65 years and over, Diseases of heart is ranked 1st (531,583 deaths in 2019). For 45–64 years, it is 1st in 1980 and second in 2019 (111,975). For 25–44 years it is 4th (13,994) and 15–24 years it is 5th (1,223 and 872 total deaths for 1980 and 2019 respectively).[1]
I'm also pretty sure many (most?) drug overdoses manifest as cardiac arrest and are probably included in "Diseases of the heart:"
>Drug overdose is a leading cause of cardiac arrest and is currently the second leading cause of overall injury-related fatality in the United States.[2]
A bad comparison. Fentanyl deaths are fully avoidable, heart diseases have existed forever.
culi 5 hours ago [-]
Point taken, but archeologists and anthropologists have known for a while now that cardiovascular disease is virtually absent in non-industrial societies.
And we also know there's a ton more that could be done to lessen how common heart disease is
slothtrop 1 hours ago [-]
What's the life expectancy again in non-industrial societies?
bluGill 5 hours ago [-]
There are things we can do that people are not doing. However plenty of people who do eat well and exercise die of heart diseases and we don't know how to stop that.
BudaDude 6 hours ago [-]
They are also for the most part avoidable
aylmao 5 hours ago [-]
Working on US healthcare affordability would avoid plenty of these (and many other) deaths.
slothtrop 1 hours ago [-]
Heart disease is more preventable than given credence. Prevention is the best medicine.
Vehicle deaths are also avoidable.
lnxg33k1 6 hours ago [-]
If you start to ban cigarettes, mcdonalds and similar, also many heart diseases can be avoided
slothtrop 1 hours ago [-]
Tobacco consumption has plummeted in the West and continues to. If anything it shows that sin taxes and messaging work. A ban leads to a black market and would be a gross overstep. Alcohol consumption has also fallen.
For one we could stop subsidizing suspect products (e.g. HFCS) and create other incentives.
dboreham 6 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
tayo42 5 hours ago [-]
get rid of fentanyl and how many go back to overdosing on heroine and oxycodone etc...
coderc 5 hours ago [-]
74,000 is the approximate number for just 2023. The number was even higher in 2022. It's not "just" 74,000 deaths.
nomel 1 hours ago [-]
~180k from 2015-2022 [1]. If the fraction of fentanyl is similar for 2023 and 2024 [2], then the number would be over 300k (I don't see direct numbers for 2023 or 2024).
One usually measures years of life-expectancy lost. Your heart attacks victims may well be 80 year old with 5 average years left, you need more than ten of those to account from one 20 year old incautious party girl...
inglor_cz 51 minutes ago [-]
If victims of Fentanyl die much younger than victims of heart disease, the total # of lost years of life can be of the same order.
I remember reading that elimination of heart disease would increase life expectancy by some 5,5 years. Not nothing, but it indicates that most people die of heart disease at a relatively old age, when something else would kill them quite soon.
OTOH if a Fentanyl victim loses 40 or 50 years of potential life, that is a major loss for society as a whole. Kids may not be born etc.
dragonwriter 47 minutes ago [-]
> If victims of Fentanyl die much younger than victims of heart disease, the total # of lost years of life can be of the same order.
It can be even without that if you are looking at quality-adjusted life years and not just raw life years.
from-nibly 6 hours ago [-]
We don't profit from fentanyl deaths.
hammock 6 hours ago [-]
We grow that at home. (Corn, soy and sugar)
In fact the tariffs will help fund the farm bills.
culi 5 hours ago [-]
US agriculture is already arguably the most heavily subsidized in the world
jollyllama 5 hours ago [-]
What's the YLL stats on fent vs heart disease?
bhaney 6 hours ago [-]
If we could put tariffs on heart disease we would
gberger 6 hours ago [-]
We can, though? A sugar tax.
scythe 5 hours ago [-]
Generally we are more concerned when people die at 40 than at 80. The latter is considered "normal". There are a few ways that the epidemiologists try to quantify this notion — DALYs or QALYs.
Fentanyl takes people young. And it's new. Those characteristics make it a serious concern.
Der_Einzige 6 hours ago [-]
But that war (against metabolic syndrome) is already won because of Ozempic/Wegovy/Zepbound. Give it 20 years.
ge96 5 hours ago [-]
It seems bad to fix a problem that can be addressed by self control. It's like making a bulky un-aerodynamic car go farther by adding a bigger engine/more fuel. But I understand too when you're 100s of lbs overweight it can seem impossible to change. I work out myself but my motivation is to get laid vs. actually embracing health I still binge eat for fun.
I think Ozempic doesn't have crazy side effects other than the face? Could be wrong
Edit: Regarding the topic at hand, I either don't drink or binge drink so I'm no saint same with driving fast.
sempron64 5 hours ago [-]
Obesity rates have been increasing globally for decades.
There is no example of a country that has reduced obesity through public policy, food policy (even in the EU with strong GMO regulations), or messaging.
From a government level a different approach is necessary. So far GLP-1 inhibitors are the only things that have worked at scale. Let's see if that holds up.
That' doesn't address the main point of the ge96's comment though, which is that we seem to be replacing a problem with a dependence in medication, which could cause further problems. It seems akin to solving the loneliness epidemic [1] or the prevalence of depression, which some call an "epidemic" [2], with anti-depressants.
> It seems bad to fix a problem that can be addressed by self control.
This argument applies similarly to the fentanyl crisis, since people could simply have the self control to not take fentanyl recreationally. Do you have a similar belief that the government shouldn't be trying to stop the mass import of fentanyl and other harmful drugs?
aylmao 5 hours ago [-]
Actually, yes. I think the government should be addressing the cost-of-living crisis, loneliness crisis, the high cost of health, the overprescription of opioids, and the cultural issues that all contribute to people opting for fentanyl in the first place.
If the government manages to stop fentanyl imports, people will simply either manufacture fentanyl locally or opt for other drugs. I agree that it's not a matter of self-control— a fentanyl addict can't simply will its way out of it— but there is a reason they chose to consume fentanyl in the first place, and despite knowing its effects, willingly chose to "escape reality".
ge96 5 hours ago [-]
Sure if the drugs aren't there to begin with can't take em. But also depends where you are/who you associate with which again if you're in the bad areas probably exposed more to drugs/less hope of getting out having a better life. I guess I'm fortunate I've only ever been exposed to/try the weaker stuff.
tartoran 4 hours ago [-]
> It seems bad to fix a problem that can be addressed by self control.
I don't think it's only about self control. but it would probably be easier if the industry wasn't pushing junk food and sugary food on Americans. Look, other countries don't have this problem. Does it mean that self control vanishes within US borders?
ge96 4 hours ago [-]
someone else in this comment chain linked to stats how obesity is going up everywhere (other countries) but anyway, another thing to consider how cigarette packs nowadays have disgusting images of cancer-ridden organs or whatever on them and people still buy them
I also think regarding fentanyl it's a legit drug in hospitals so there will be a source
tartoran 3 hours ago [-]
>nowadays have disgusting images of cancer-ridden organs or whatever on them and people still buy them
I think smoking cigarettes went way down in the US and other parts of the world. Sure, people still use them but the overall downward trend is good and that is because something was done about it.
keybored 5 hours ago [-]
It’s bad to fix a problem if the solution has side effects. I mean that’s the pragmatic, health-based answer to whether it is good or bad.
If these don’t have adverse effects then it is not bad. What “bad” we are left with is character-moralizing.
We could go further. “It is bad to fix your obesity by removing yourself from bad food.” Because this does not involve self-control either. If you isolate yourself from grocery stores and only have access to certain foods you can lose weight without self-control.
ge96 5 hours ago [-]
"isolate yourself from grocery stores" that sounds like self control. Anyway not trying to argue this.
if it's working for people great, I'm on the boat that does not like it when obesity is supported eg. in victoria secret but I'll just sound like an ahole to say that
edit: I'm also on the side of being somewhat against physical/genetic modification as it lies to your partner/future child what you actually look like but when it gets to that stage (eg. crispr) then I guess it doesn't matter.
I'm not religious so it's not from that perspective I'm also not white
Last thing I'll add, why not too, I mean humans don't have wings yet we engineered airplanes to surpass birds, is that wrong?
I am a nihilist to some extent so yeah really nothing matters except what is truly real pain/suffering and death.
keybored 5 hours ago [-]
> edit: I'm also on the side of being somewhat against physical/genetic modification as it lies to your partner/future child what you actually look like but when it gets to that stage (eg. crispr) then I guess it doesn't matter.
Being predisposed to obesity and yet overcoming it by working 300% harder than average (compared to someone who exercises at all) on your diet and fitness is another way to lie.
But this is self-control so then it is irrationally different I guess.
> I am a nihilist to some extent so yeah really nothing matters except what is truly real pain/suffering and death.
Random existential observations but okay.
Izikiel43 5 hours ago [-]
Why are you assuming it can always be fixed by self control? Some people have complete bad standards for eating compared to a regular person, both in quantity and quality. The drugs help deal only with the quantity.
ge96 5 hours ago [-]
Yeah different approaches to a problem, drugs, physical changes (surgery to stomach size), maybe something like CBT. When I get bored I binge eat so I get it.
wavefunction 6 hours ago [-]
it's just political theater mostly to provide the appearance of "doing something" while also providing a new excuse for why high prices are still high and continue to rise
certain political figures and their supporters just need a story to tell, it doesn't have to be particularly accurate or even coherent for their purposes
michaelt 5 hours ago [-]
If you think that's a surprise, consider the fact the US responded to 3000 deaths on September 11th with a 20 year, multi-trillion-dollar pair of wars that killed far more than 3000 people.
It turns out there are a lot of concerns beyond than the number of bodies.
readthenotes1 5 hours ago [-]
Why don't we ban automobiles since they cause 41,000 deaths per year?
bluGill 5 hours ago [-]
A lot more people use automobiles. Hard drugs are used, but very few people use them, many have never tried them.
knowaveragejoe 6 hours ago [-]
It was never about a perceived moral crusade against fentanyl and addiction at large. It's only ever been about throwing our weight around to disrupt alliances and institutions with the goal of destroying American soft power.
invalidOrTaken 5 hours ago [-]
wait til you hear what they did in 2001!
moate 6 hours ago [-]
Ahh yes, that was definitely the core reason and not just something sensational to put out as the cause. We definitely care about drug deaths in this country wink.
Feels like the main reasons you institute tariffs, historically, is to 1- control the production/flow of goods and 2- to raise money for other endeavors. As tariffs are a much more difficult form of taxation for a payer to track (they're not getting a bill the way they do on income/real estate taxes, it's being hidden in the cost of the good) they're also a great way to obfuscate "raising taxes" if you're running on a platform of, say "I'm going to institute the largest tax break in American history".
robertlagrant 5 hours ago [-]
People voted for fewer drug deaths, and it looks as though the looming tariffs have stirred a drug-death-preventing response, which has paused the tariffs[0]. It seems as though people are getting what they voted for so far?
You may not care about drug deaths, but many people do.
moate 2 hours ago [-]
Sweetheart, your assumption that I don't care about drug deaths because I think that the president would cynically use them as cover for him to make political moves, is very very stupid.
There's nothing whatsoever in my statement that implied that I personally don't care about people dying from laced drugs, so let's not go making assumptions about each other, deal?
mvdtnz 1 hours ago [-]
> Sweetheart
Really gross mate.
leptons 5 hours ago [-]
> As tariffs are a much more difficult form of taxation for a payer to track (they're not getting a bill the way they do on income/real estate taxes, it's being hidden in the cost of the good)
Oh no, it's very easy. When I sell my product, I will be including the exact amount the buyer is paying above what is normal due to tariffs. The tariffs are very well expressed on the purchase price of the parts that go into the product, so it's very easy for me to add up the tariffs and tell the buyer how much more trump is demanding they pay for the product.
Rendered at 22:51:58 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Vercel.
This is a completely artificial problem, created by the war on drugs. Just like the waves of PMMA deaths in europe caused by safrole seizures. Western nations have no one to blame for this but themselves.
Growing up in the 70s and 80s, I know that by the 80s heroin had a bad stigma attached to it even by other drug users, and it was rarely seen in the circles I knew. Coke, pot and meth did not have that at the time.
Possibly it's just too potent for legalization to be viable.
https://www.gloshospitals.nhs.uk/healthcare-professionals/tr...
Addicts literally carry around fent testing kits so they can _avoid_ this synthetic opioid.
Its my understanding that heroin and street pharmaceuticals aren't really around anymore. Its ALL fentanyl now and everyone knows it.
Choosy addicts choose...is something I never thought I'd read. I'd suggest they weren't addicting right if they are choosy. When you can find your fix of choice, you just fix with what's available.
If your comment were accurate, fent sales would plummet and the problem would fix itself. This is clearly not the case.
The justice system concentrates only on putting small vendors behind bars (usually black people), but they're not the ones making real profits. I guarantee you don't know any big drug traffickers operating inside the US that were sent to jail. When you hear about big bosses it is always some guy outside the US, but the ones operating inside the country are all protected in one way or another. They're all laughing and buying mansions all over the country. This corruption is what the US should be concentrating on if they want to stop drug trafficking.
Here is one such study: https://immigrationforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/llic...
The war on drugs has shown that focussing on the supply side has done little to solve the problem. There will be new ways to smuggle or new drugs to catch in the drag net while the demand remains.
The question then is, why is the demand for drugs so high?
Adjusted for population size and it’s roughly half the length of the US/Mexico land border and it’s designed for military incursion via tanks not just people in a pickup truck.
Similarly the amount of money spent on inspecting imports is well under 1% of the total value of said imports. It’s possible to inspect literally every package crossing the border, we just don’t want to.
Edit: also, landmines
But that stuff is independent of length which is why I mentioned trade separately.
For anyone else that was curious, the Korean DMZ is 150 miles long. US Mexico border is 1950.
On the other hand suggesting there’s suddenly massive issues with coordination because a country is 7x the size just doesn’t make a lot of sense.
PS: 160 mi, but that should be obvious from my comment and the relevant population sizes.
https://www.voanews.com/a/korean-industrial-zone-reopens-as-...
Tariffs are just taxes that will destroy the economy.
They reversed course and recently passed a law to recriminalize possession. I think its the right move. Downtown turned into a very unpleasant place.
The support and treatment structures have remained essentially unchanged since Measure 110 passed, with holdups to funding and logistics at almost every level of the state's government. Oregon was already ranked almost dead last in addiction treatment, and that hasn't budged. I can't see how it would work without this other critical piece.
Oregon Public Broadcasting (OPB) has some good coverage about this failure from the first couple years (which was never really rectified): https://www.opb.org/article/2022/05/24/oregons-measure-110-i...
Also worth noting is that research has found no association with with Measure 110 and crime, and crime has been steadily falling since the measure was passed. (along with most other metro areas in the USA) https://www.opb.org/article/2024/01/24/portland-crime-violen...
Then in April of 2024 House Bill 4002 made possession once again a misdemeanor but kept most of the other provisions of Measure 110 and still focuses on "deflecting" people who possess out of the criminal justice system and into treatment programs.
So Measure 110 is still mostly in effect. They just made it so you do in fact have something on your record if you're caught with possession.
Unless you're forced to do something to deal with the addiction then there's probably not much point for this kind of thing:
> Starting September 1, 2024, possession of hard drugs became classified as a criminal misdemeanor outside of the regular A-E categorization system, carrying a sentence of up to 6 months of jail, which may be waived if the convictee enters into mandatory drug treatment.[8][9]
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Oregon_Ballot_Measure_110
Of course one needs to keep at it, otherwise things fall apart:
> Funding ebbed still more recently due to new national budget pressures, which undercut efforts encouraging addicts into rehabilitation programs. The results of “disinvestment” and “a freezing in [their] response” led Goulão to state that “what we have today no longer serves as an example to anyone.”
> Speaking more quantitatively, drug users in treatment declined from 1,150 to 352 (from 2015 to 2021) as funding dropped in 2012 from $82.7 million to $17.4 million. Budget pressures and the apparent desire to cut immediate program costs of drug addiction (distinct from the total societal cost of drug addiction) led to program decentralization and the use of NGOs. Anecdotal evidence of a fragmenting, even breaking, system abounds: Demoralized police no longer cite addicts to get them into treatment and at least some NGOs view the effort as less about treatment and more about framing lifetime drug use as a right.
* https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/is-portugals-dru...
The other question is does the US have the resources (that people can afford) to have folks go to treatment.
The deterioration of our public spaces is not caused by our drug epidemic, it's the logical outcome when the state fails to provide services to the most vulnerable. People literally have nowhere else to go.
How would you sell this in a way that could get you re-elected?
It's still a good idea, but term limits only really work as part of a much broader program of oversight and control over the incentives of politicians.
How would you persuade voters to NOT vote for that other guy, now that the problem is solved? How would you "secure more funding" for x,y, or z now that z doesn't exist? If you eradicate suffering, you can't blame the other side for it anymore. It's political suicide.
I wonder to what degree Portland is a product of its local policy (like this decriminalization/recriminalization) vs the national trends that are seen across the USA.
Most incarceration is about helping those who aren't the ones suffering (evidenced by "... a very unpleasant place"). Not attacking you for your comment, just pointing out the paradigm we as a society have.
You could go the way of East Asia. That would be very difficult, but easy access to narcotics could lead to disastrous results.
You need access to safe and clean drugs. Support systems need to be in place. The look of downtown isn't the only way to measure success. How many people aren't dying because there isn't a stigma around drug use, where clean and predictable drug doses (like alcohol) can be had, drug testing kits, safe pieces to use with, safe places to be etc
Tariffs are taxes and subsidies. See "Tariffs Give U.S. Steelmakers a Green Light to Lift Prices":
> Executives from U.S. steel companies were enthusiastic backers of the 2018 tariffs and have urged Trump to deploy them again in his second term. They have called for the elimination of tariff exemptions and duty-free import quotas, saying those carve-outs allow unfairly low-price steel to enter the U.S. and undermine the steel market.
[…]
> Higher prices for imported steel are often followed by domestic suppliers raising their own prices, which then get passed through supply chains, manufacturing executives said. For consumers already reeling from rising retail prices and inflation, pricier steel and aluminum could further lift costs for durable goods like appliances and automobiles, as well as consumer products with aluminum packaging, such as canned beverages.
> “The issue with tariffs is everybody raises their prices, even the domestics,” said Ralph Hardt, owner of Belleville International, a Pennsylvania-based manufacturer of valves and components used in the energy and defense industries. Steel and aluminum are Belleville’s largest expenses.
* https://www.wsj.com/economy/trade/trump-tariffs-mexico-canad...
So tariffs are taxes in the sense that consumers are paying higher prices. But they are subsidies in that domestic companies don't have as much pressure on prices and can get more money.
So if you want to help a particular industry might as well just go with subsidies directly instead of the taxation add-on as well.
They just get hysterical information about the extreme cases and extrapolate to everyone.
People just need to be supported through hard times and experimentation phases so they come out the other side.
So many people eventually get clean, stop using and get back to having productive lives.
I saw so many unnecessary deaths, friends with potential, die, because we don't want to help and support them. Overdoses are not needed.These aren't street people that make up so much of the hysteria, just middle class normal people that had their life go a certain way.
People don't want fentanyl or fake drugs in general. Access to drugs that can be measured are safe. Opiods are safe, doctors give fentanyl to patients constantly, and you don't come out of surgeries a opioid addict because you got a dose one times.
The hysterical people need to learn there place in the discussion on drugs and get to the side.
Just wait until you see who's making decisions about women's health.
> [...] the trade in other chemicals involved in the manufacturing of fentanyl - some of which can have legitimate purposes - remain uncontrolled, as those involved in the trade find new ways to evade the law.
One has to imagine there's local manufacturing of fentanyl too, and one has to wonder the magnitude of it.
https://www.ussc.gov/research/quick-facts/fentanyl-trafficki...
Most seizures happen at checkpoints or vehicle searches.
https://www.cato.org/blog/fentanyl-smuggled-us-citizens-us-c...
From a purely economic perspective, it just sounds like local production will replace foreign imports if the US does manage to stop fentanyl from entering from abroad.
What are these chemicals, and what are their other uses? Which of them don't have any other uses?
By now it it's well known that globalization is for a fantasy world that doesn't exist, and people should stop listening so much to economics professors. Trade barriers need to go up to re-orient things. Unfortunately, Trump is unlikely to do it competently.
Look for American made kitchen knives. You will be lucky to spend less than $2k on a block of Made in USA knives. Meanwhile you can get a pretty good set made in China for under $200.
If you wanted American companies to compete, you would need a 10x tariff to make that $200 knife set cost $2000.
it's a security issue and municipalities and public health exploit it to "manage" for increased bureaucracy and funding. whenever they want more federal or state money, they turn the crisis tap on or off. public agencies all benefit from rising poverty, and where they can't create it with lax enforcement, they import it.
stopping the flow of drugs cuts off a huge source of bureaucratic crisis leverage, and local political corruption funding, that both poison the entire system of institutions. it's difficult to find a coherent moral case against a radical crackdown on fentanyl for those reasons.
Hard to say at the moment if anything he is doing is "great" or not. I choose to observe instead of emoting about it. Half the world is convinced the sky is falling, and half are cheering.
I'm the person in the middle of the (probably) not-overlapping venn diagram.
He said on day one he'd lower grocery prices. He said he had nothing to do with Project 2025 and on day one he signed a stack of executive ordered hand written by the Heritage Foundation. etc.
Yeah, he hasn’t done everything he claimed, and I imagine he won’t, most politicians don’t. He was very clear about all the things he has done so far, and this is hard to argue.
Making a bad-faith argument about one specific point doesn’t negate the argument.
Also the deals announced were deals already done prior to this administration.
How are those egg prices coming?
People freak out about Trump's proposed tariffs as if other countries do not already have tariffs on US.
> Canada’s whole system is built to avoid a surplus -- hence its name, “supply management.” [...] Within quota, the tariff is 7.5%. Over-quota milk faces a 241% tariff. [1]
I also have to agree with Derek Holt here:
> Derek Holt, an economist at Scotiabank, said in a research note. “Better judgment would question whether an entire trading relationship needs to be jeopardized in order to appeal to dairy farmers in Wisconsin.” [1]
[1] https://www.farmprogress.com/management/does-canada-really-c... https://www.farmprogress.com/management/does-canada-really-c...
Sure, the dairy carveouts - which the US and Trump agreed to, again, just four years ago - are stupid artifacts of a farmers lobby group, but threatening to blow up our economy on a whim makes the US unfriendly and untrustworthy. Doing all that while the leader repeatedly says they want to annex our country by economic force and make us a state turns things from untrustworthy to adversary.
If trump wanted free trade to end, he may have gotten it, because a huge amount of the trust that underlay the north american economy is gone now. If you're cheering that on because the number of eggs your dairy farmers are able to export is under a quota, then I can only say your point of view is far too limited.
* The effectively null amounts of fentanyl & migrants crossing the border.
If it wasn't for oil, natural gas, power Canada would be at a trade surplus with the US. Oil and Natural gas are not things are not easy to find replacement US based sources.
https://economics.td.com/ca-canada-us-trade-balance
I doubt even the cartels could give you an exact figure as they aren't the only ones smuggling the drugs or the precursors.
Are you saying we only intercepted 19kg? How wouldn't that make sense to you considering the disparity of population density at the borders, as well as the infrastructure and staffing at each border??
Canada already Tariffs many products coming from the USA, many even exceeding 200%. The political theater and kindergarten understanding of geo-politics would explain your take on "100 years of friendship flushed down the toilet" lol.
honestly all i see is incompetence and creating situations only to solve them and claim victory, while letting some loon terrorize and try to dismantle the bureaucracy
"Hook, line and sinker", heh?
https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/presidents-us-mexico-...
Some data (not exactly the same I found last time, but seems to still be accurate as I recalled it):
>About 82% of people who die of coronary heart disease are 65 or older[0]
See also the CDC's list of deaths by cause by age group:
For 65 years and over, Diseases of heart is ranked 1st (531,583 deaths in 2019). For 45–64 years, it is 1st in 1980 and second in 2019 (111,975). For 25–44 years it is 4th (13,994) and 15–24 years it is 5th (1,223 and 872 total deaths for 1980 and 2019 respectively).[1]
I'm also pretty sure many (most?) drug overdoses manifest as cardiac arrest and are probably included in "Diseases of the heart:"
>Drug overdose is a leading cause of cardiac arrest and is currently the second leading cause of overall injury-related fatality in the United States.[2]
[0] https://memorialhermann.org/services/specialties/heart-and-v...
[1] https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/2020-2021/LCODAge.pdf
[2] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3399948/
And we also know there's a ton more that could be done to lessen how common heart disease is
Vehicle deaths are also avoidable.
For one we could stop subsidizing suspect products (e.g. HFCS) and create other incentives.
[1] https://usafacts.org/articles/are-fentanyl-overdose-deaths-r...
[2] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/overdose-deaths-a...
I remember reading that elimination of heart disease would increase life expectancy by some 5,5 years. Not nothing, but it indicates that most people die of heart disease at a relatively old age, when something else would kill them quite soon.
OTOH if a Fentanyl victim loses 40 or 50 years of potential life, that is a major loss for society as a whole. Kids may not be born etc.
It can be even without that if you are looking at quality-adjusted life years and not just raw life years.
In fact the tariffs will help fund the farm bills.
Fentanyl takes people young. And it's new. Those characteristics make it a serious concern.
I think Ozempic doesn't have crazy side effects other than the face? Could be wrong
Edit: Regarding the topic at hand, I either don't drink or binge drink so I'm no saint same with driving fast.
There is no example of a country that has reduced obesity through public policy, food policy (even in the EU with strong GMO regulations), or messaging.
From a government level a different approach is necessary. So far GLP-1 inhibitors are the only things that have worked at scale. Let's see if that holds up.
https://data.worldobesity.org/region/european-union-uk-1/#da...
[1] https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/surgeon-general-soci...
[2] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221265701...
This argument applies similarly to the fentanyl crisis, since people could simply have the self control to not take fentanyl recreationally. Do you have a similar belief that the government shouldn't be trying to stop the mass import of fentanyl and other harmful drugs?
If the government manages to stop fentanyl imports, people will simply either manufacture fentanyl locally or opt for other drugs. I agree that it's not a matter of self-control— a fentanyl addict can't simply will its way out of it— but there is a reason they chose to consume fentanyl in the first place, and despite knowing its effects, willingly chose to "escape reality".
I don't think it's only about self control. but it would probably be easier if the industry wasn't pushing junk food and sugary food on Americans. Look, other countries don't have this problem. Does it mean that self control vanishes within US borders?
I also think regarding fentanyl it's a legit drug in hospitals so there will be a source
I think smoking cigarettes went way down in the US and other parts of the world. Sure, people still use them but the overall downward trend is good and that is because something was done about it.
If these don’t have adverse effects then it is not bad. What “bad” we are left with is character-moralizing.
We could go further. “It is bad to fix your obesity by removing yourself from bad food.” Because this does not involve self-control either. If you isolate yourself from grocery stores and only have access to certain foods you can lose weight without self-control.
if it's working for people great, I'm on the boat that does not like it when obesity is supported eg. in victoria secret but I'll just sound like an ahole to say that
edit: I'm also on the side of being somewhat against physical/genetic modification as it lies to your partner/future child what you actually look like but when it gets to that stage (eg. crispr) then I guess it doesn't matter.
I'm not religious so it's not from that perspective I'm also not white
Last thing I'll add, why not too, I mean humans don't have wings yet we engineered airplanes to surpass birds, is that wrong?
I am a nihilist to some extent so yeah really nothing matters except what is truly real pain/suffering and death.
Being predisposed to obesity and yet overcoming it by working 300% harder than average (compared to someone who exercises at all) on your diet and fitness is another way to lie.
But this is self-control so then it is irrationally different I guess.
> I am a nihilist to some extent so yeah really nothing matters except what is truly real pain/suffering and death.
Random existential observations but okay.
certain political figures and their supporters just need a story to tell, it doesn't have to be particularly accurate or even coherent for their purposes
It turns out there are a lot of concerns beyond than the number of bodies.
Feels like the main reasons you institute tariffs, historically, is to 1- control the production/flow of goods and 2- to raise money for other endeavors. As tariffs are a much more difficult form of taxation for a payer to track (they're not getting a bill the way they do on income/real estate taxes, it's being hidden in the cost of the good) they're also a great way to obfuscate "raising taxes" if you're running on a platform of, say "I'm going to institute the largest tax break in American history".
[0] https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-discuss-tariffs-canadi...
There's nothing whatsoever in my statement that implied that I personally don't care about people dying from laced drugs, so let's not go making assumptions about each other, deal?
Really gross mate.
Oh no, it's very easy. When I sell my product, I will be including the exact amount the buyer is paying above what is normal due to tariffs. The tariffs are very well expressed on the purchase price of the parts that go into the product, so it's very easy for me to add up the tariffs and tell the buyer how much more trump is demanding they pay for the product.