▲ 826 ▼ Trump proposed bombing Mexico and it somehow wasn’t a big story (www.vox.com) submitted 2 years ago by jeffw@lemmy.world [M] to c/news@lemmy.world 113 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] gressen@lemm.ee 19 points 2 years ago (1 child) Just like there are not jihadists left... oh wait. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Nuke_the_whales@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (3 children) It's easier to fight a gang than an ideology. It would work out better I think permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world 20 points 2 years ago* (3 children) Not really. Just as killing a person doesn't kill an ideology, killing a person also doesn't kill the profit motives for cartels. If anything it makes the problem worse. Because you've suddenly freed up territory in a very lucrative black market. The solution to the drug problem is to instead kill the motivations people have for doing the drugs in the first place: https://www.psychiatrictimes.com/view/what-does-rat-park-teach-us-about-addiction This means fixing the housing crisis, guaranteeing people jobs, food, water, shelter, and medical support. It means embracing harm reduction policy. It means ending the war on drugs. Drug use is a symptom of an unhealthy society. Fix the health of society and the symptoms will disappear, and with it the cartels as well. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Fedizen@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago could also give people free healthcare so they can afford real medication. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Lifter@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) Or just kill the poor people by sending them to any meaningless war. /s permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ShaggySnacks@lemmy.myserv.one 3 points 2 years ago It's not a meaningless war. It's war for natural resources to allow CEOs pad their bank accounts with sweet, sweet government contracts to rebuilding this war torn nation. Also for oil. Or we need to show another country how big our dick is by picking a fight with them. permalink fedilink source parent [–] calcopiritus@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) Profits are always a risk-reward balance. If the risk goes up (druglords are more likely to be killed) but the price doesn't, then the market goes away. Most likely they would just up the prices and use the new profits to buy weapons to defend themselves though. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) When a rival cartel gets weakened, there is less supply with the same demand. So another cartel will always use that to raise their prices. So the market never goes away. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] calcopiritus@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) Why do you reply to my comment with something that has nothing to do with my argument? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago It is the exact same topic permalink fedilink source parent [–] Veneroso@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago There's too much money in the drug trade. Violence is a cost of doing business. Thier children grow up safe in the United States, living in luxury from the poison we buy from them. They literally have lobbyists working against drug legalization because it would destroy their captive market. Marijuana is still illegal federally and way past Hearst's hemp boycot to save his newspaper business, hint: it's the cartels working against legalization via lobbying. https://www.democracynow.org/2011/2/8/headlines/hilary_clinton_says_us_cant_legalize_drugs_because_there_is_too_much_money_in_it permalink fedilink source parent [–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago It’s easier to fight a gang than an ideology. When Bush first went into Iraq, he described it as a Crusade. For some crazy reason, people in the Arab world weren't thrilled with this language. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Nuke_the_whales@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (3 children) It's easier to fight a gang than an ideology. It would work out better I think permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world 20 points 2 years ago* (3 children) Not really. Just as killing a person doesn't kill an ideology, killing a person also doesn't kill the profit motives for cartels. If anything it makes the problem worse. Because you've suddenly freed up territory in a very lucrative black market. The solution to the drug problem is to instead kill the motivations people have for doing the drugs in the first place: https://www.psychiatrictimes.com/view/what-does-rat-park-teach-us-about-addiction This means fixing the housing crisis, guaranteeing people jobs, food, water, shelter, and medical support. It means embracing harm reduction policy. It means ending the war on drugs. Drug use is a symptom of an unhealthy society. Fix the health of society and the symptoms will disappear, and with it the cartels as well. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Fedizen@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago could also give people free healthcare so they can afford real medication. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Lifter@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) Or just kill the poor people by sending them to any meaningless war. /s permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ShaggySnacks@lemmy.myserv.one 3 points 2 years ago It's not a meaningless war. It's war for natural resources to allow CEOs pad their bank accounts with sweet, sweet government contracts to rebuilding this war torn nation. Also for oil. Or we need to show another country how big our dick is by picking a fight with them. permalink fedilink source parent [–] calcopiritus@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) Profits are always a risk-reward balance. If the risk goes up (druglords are more likely to be killed) but the price doesn't, then the market goes away. Most likely they would just up the prices and use the new profits to buy weapons to defend themselves though. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) When a rival cartel gets weakened, there is less supply with the same demand. So another cartel will always use that to raise their prices. So the market never goes away. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] calcopiritus@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) Why do you reply to my comment with something that has nothing to do with my argument? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago It is the exact same topic permalink fedilink source parent [–] Veneroso@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago There's too much money in the drug trade. Violence is a cost of doing business. Thier children grow up safe in the United States, living in luxury from the poison we buy from them. They literally have lobbyists working against drug legalization because it would destroy their captive market. Marijuana is still illegal federally and way past Hearst's hemp boycot to save his newspaper business, hint: it's the cartels working against legalization via lobbying. https://www.democracynow.org/2011/2/8/headlines/hilary_clinton_says_us_cant_legalize_drugs_because_there_is_too_much_money_in_it permalink fedilink source parent [–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago It’s easier to fight a gang than an ideology. When Bush first went into Iraq, he described it as a Crusade. For some crazy reason, people in the Arab world weren't thrilled with this language. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world 20 points 2 years ago* (3 children) Not really. Just as killing a person doesn't kill an ideology, killing a person also doesn't kill the profit motives for cartels. If anything it makes the problem worse. Because you've suddenly freed up territory in a very lucrative black market. The solution to the drug problem is to instead kill the motivations people have for doing the drugs in the first place: https://www.psychiatrictimes.com/view/what-does-rat-park-teach-us-about-addiction This means fixing the housing crisis, guaranteeing people jobs, food, water, shelter, and medical support. It means embracing harm reduction policy. It means ending the war on drugs. Drug use is a symptom of an unhealthy society. Fix the health of society and the symptoms will disappear, and with it the cartels as well. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Fedizen@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago could also give people free healthcare so they can afford real medication. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Lifter@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) Or just kill the poor people by sending them to any meaningless war. /s permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ShaggySnacks@lemmy.myserv.one 3 points 2 years ago It's not a meaningless war. It's war for natural resources to allow CEOs pad their bank accounts with sweet, sweet government contracts to rebuilding this war torn nation. Also for oil. Or we need to show another country how big our dick is by picking a fight with them. permalink fedilink source parent [–] calcopiritus@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) Profits are always a risk-reward balance. If the risk goes up (druglords are more likely to be killed) but the price doesn't, then the market goes away. Most likely they would just up the prices and use the new profits to buy weapons to defend themselves though. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) When a rival cartel gets weakened, there is less supply with the same demand. So another cartel will always use that to raise their prices. So the market never goes away. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] calcopiritus@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) Why do you reply to my comment with something that has nothing to do with my argument? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago It is the exact same topic permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Fedizen@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago could also give people free healthcare so they can afford real medication. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Lifter@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) Or just kill the poor people by sending them to any meaningless war. /s permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ShaggySnacks@lemmy.myserv.one 3 points 2 years ago It's not a meaningless war. It's war for natural resources to allow CEOs pad their bank accounts with sweet, sweet government contracts to rebuilding this war torn nation. Also for oil. Or we need to show another country how big our dick is by picking a fight with them. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ShaggySnacks@lemmy.myserv.one 3 points 2 years ago It's not a meaningless war. It's war for natural resources to allow CEOs pad their bank accounts with sweet, sweet government contracts to rebuilding this war torn nation. Also for oil. Or we need to show another country how big our dick is by picking a fight with them. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] calcopiritus@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) Profits are always a risk-reward balance. If the risk goes up (druglords are more likely to be killed) but the price doesn't, then the market goes away. Most likely they would just up the prices and use the new profits to buy weapons to defend themselves though. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) When a rival cartel gets weakened, there is less supply with the same demand. So another cartel will always use that to raise their prices. So the market never goes away. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] calcopiritus@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) Why do you reply to my comment with something that has nothing to do with my argument? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago It is the exact same topic permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) When a rival cartel gets weakened, there is less supply with the same demand. So another cartel will always use that to raise their prices. So the market never goes away. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] calcopiritus@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) Why do you reply to my comment with something that has nothing to do with my argument? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago It is the exact same topic permalink fedilink source parent
[–] calcopiritus@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) Why do you reply to my comment with something that has nothing to do with my argument? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago It is the exact same topic permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago It is the exact same topic permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Veneroso@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago There's too much money in the drug trade. Violence is a cost of doing business. Thier children grow up safe in the United States, living in luxury from the poison we buy from them. They literally have lobbyists working against drug legalization because it would destroy their captive market. Marijuana is still illegal federally and way past Hearst's hemp boycot to save his newspaper business, hint: it's the cartels working against legalization via lobbying. https://www.democracynow.org/2011/2/8/headlines/hilary_clinton_says_us_cant_legalize_drugs_because_there_is_too_much_money_in_it permalink fedilink source parent
[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago It’s easier to fight a gang than an ideology. When Bush first went into Iraq, he described it as a Crusade. For some crazy reason, people in the Arab world weren't thrilled with this language. permalink fedilink source parent