Mexican drug cartels are responsible for manufacturing and smuggling much of the fentanyl that enters the United States and causes most drug overdose deaths, killing about 150 people a day.
But we’re just going to ignore the broken healthcare system that CAUSED all those addictions in the 90s, right? Yeah, sure, lets get people hooked on pain killers, and then cut them off cold turkey. They’ll just stop being addicted, right? Right???
Continuing the flood of them over the border hurts upcoming generations too… There’s no winning this without hurting someone. You either control the flow and risk upcoming generations who are also getting hooked on this shit. Or you cold turkey and hurt the generation that created the problem to begin with?
No no, I’m talking about today. We already cut off the generation that started the problem cold turkey…but I’ve never seen anything done about it. I don’t see health care trying to take responsibility for the hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Americans addicted to it today. There should be a medically overseeing program which helps them reduce their dependancy.
It’s simple supply and demand. I’ve never met an addict who says he enjoys being addicted. You take away the dependancy, you take away the demand. Without the demand for these drugs, the supply doesn’t matter. Like trying to sell disco records in 1988. Instead, he’s campaigning to bomb the shit out of our nearest land neighbor. Everytime I watch these hypothetical military videos, if they cover the subject of “What would happen if the USA went to war with…” and insert any country in the world besides Canada and Mexico, the answer is always the same. “It wouldn’t get far, because the USA is seperated by 2 oceans, with the worlds most equiped military providing funding for naval and arial support. Just making landfall in the USA would be impossible.”
But every one of those videos assumes that the USA isn’t dumb enough to start wars with Canada or Mexico. Granted, I don’t see Mexico as much of a military opponent, I think things could get violent along the southern border. Instead of the usual activity of random people trying to jump the border for freedom, imagine instead the entire nation storming the border with guns. Not even a military. Just a bunch of pissed off folks, who just saw their country get bombed. And I honestly wouldn’t blame them at that point.
But what are republicans going to do? Annex Mexico? Ok, now you just made millions of Mexicans into US citizens. I’M fine with that, but I don’t think trumps base would be.
They really don’t think these things through, do they?
I don’t see health care trying to take responsibility for the hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Americans addicted to it today. There should be a medically overseeing program which helps them reduce their dependancy.
Oh fair enough… I saw you mention 90s in the prior comment. Didn’t know that you shifted to today. For sure shit was overperscribed for a long long time.
the supply doesn’t matter
Eh… If it’s pennies, people will be able to afford doing it. You’re not going to be able to bring demand to nothing. So supply skyrocketing just kills those people faster in this case. I’m not sure I subscribe to this train of thought that supply would never matter. At least with consistent busts and such the price goes up which makes it harder for people to get their hands on. But yes, I’d like to see BOTH sides of this issue, both supply AND demand handled. I haven’t seen any presidency handle drugs in a way that I think is “correct”. But I’m no expert.
But what are republicans going to do?
I don’t know why people keep thinking that Republicans are going to do anything? I’m pretty sure all they wanted to do for years was build a fucking wall… that’s not doing a whole lot “against” Mexico. Do you have a source for this? This article… while it says it in the headline also doesn’t source “bomb mexico”. It states
Vance and other Republican lawmakers, such as Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., have proposed labeling drug cartels as terrorist groups to allow U.S. forces to take aggressive action.
Which doesn’t necessarily equate to treating Mexico like Iraq or Afghanistan. The one “cited” source for bombing mexico is to cnbc… which doesn’t state bomb… or anything even close to “Bomb” on it’s page at all.
But we’re just going to ignore the broken healthcare system that CAUSED all those addictions in the 90s, right? Yeah, sure, lets get people hooked on pain killers, and then cut them off cold turkey. They’ll just stop being addicted, right? Right???
Continuing the flood of them over the border hurts upcoming generations too… There’s no winning this without hurting someone. You either control the flow and risk upcoming generations who are also getting hooked on this shit. Or you cold turkey and hurt the generation that created the problem to begin with?
I don’t think there’s a real win here.
Legalization, regulation, and drug rehabilitation services is the solution.
No no, I’m talking about today. We already cut off the generation that started the problem cold turkey…but I’ve never seen anything done about it. I don’t see health care trying to take responsibility for the hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Americans addicted to it today. There should be a medically overseeing program which helps them reduce their dependancy.
It’s simple supply and demand. I’ve never met an addict who says he enjoys being addicted. You take away the dependancy, you take away the demand. Without the demand for these drugs, the supply doesn’t matter. Like trying to sell disco records in 1988. Instead, he’s campaigning to bomb the shit out of our nearest land neighbor. Everytime I watch these hypothetical military videos, if they cover the subject of “What would happen if the USA went to war with…” and insert any country in the world besides Canada and Mexico, the answer is always the same. “It wouldn’t get far, because the USA is seperated by 2 oceans, with the worlds most equiped military providing funding for naval and arial support. Just making landfall in the USA would be impossible.”
But every one of those videos assumes that the USA isn’t dumb enough to start wars with Canada or Mexico. Granted, I don’t see Mexico as much of a military opponent, I think things could get violent along the southern border. Instead of the usual activity of random people trying to jump the border for freedom, imagine instead the entire nation storming the border with guns. Not even a military. Just a bunch of pissed off folks, who just saw their country get bombed. And I honestly wouldn’t blame them at that point.
But what are republicans going to do? Annex Mexico? Ok, now you just made millions of Mexicans into US citizens. I’M fine with that, but I don’t think trumps base would be.
They really don’t think these things through, do they?
Oh fair enough… I saw you mention 90s in the prior comment. Didn’t know that you shifted to today. For sure shit was overperscribed for a long long time.
Eh… If it’s pennies, people will be able to afford doing it. You’re not going to be able to bring demand to nothing. So supply skyrocketing just kills those people faster in this case. I’m not sure I subscribe to this train of thought that supply would never matter. At least with consistent busts and such the price goes up which makes it harder for people to get their hands on. But yes, I’d like to see BOTH sides of this issue, both supply AND demand handled. I haven’t seen any presidency handle drugs in a way that I think is “correct”. But I’m no expert.
I don’t know why people keep thinking that Republicans are going to do anything? I’m pretty sure all they wanted to do for years was build a fucking wall… that’s not doing a whole lot “against” Mexico. Do you have a source for this? This article… while it says it in the headline also doesn’t source “bomb mexico”. It states
Which doesn’t necessarily equate to treating Mexico like Iraq or Afghanistan. The one “cited” source for bombing mexico is to cnbc… which doesn’t state bomb… or anything even close to “Bomb” on it’s page at all.