[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]

/townhall/ - Townhall

A place for civilized animals
Password (For file deletion.)

[Return][Go to bottom]


File: 1564454644570.jpg (607.57 KB, 1920x1080, 16:9, Time_For_Science...Evil_Sc….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

"[R]ising drug-seizure numbers suggest there's more hell ahead for communities across the country facing a new or renewed wave of meth." That's right: meth. It's back and bigger than ever.

"Federal drug data... show seizures of meth by authorities have spiked, rising 142% between 2017 and 2018." It's a national trend. "Seizures of meth are up, sometimes dramatically, in pockets of nearly every state in the U.S."

Details: https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/07/29/745061185/seizures-of-methamphetamine-are-surging-in-the-u-s

So... what should be done about this? Do we need a drastic expansion of law enforcement efforts? Crackdowns throughout city after city?

Maybe something more radical? What about ending the 'war on drugs' and treating meth in a decriminalized fashion, through public health efforts? Or is that too extreme?

Is there perhaps no solution? Maybe communities should simply knuckle down and endure this? Or is that too pessimistic?


>Is there perhaps no solution? Maybe communities should simply knuckle down and endure this? Or is that too pessimistic?

Pessimism or not, I think that's the easiest and perhaps even most effective solution.  Just don't let your friends and family use meth.  Don't create situations that drive people towards drug abuse.


>Crackdowns throughout city after city


You know, I'm not really into drugs -- it wasn't part of my upbringing, but I find most people in the city really like them or perhaps need them, and I try not to be judgemental.  On the other hand, I support state enforcement, of course.

>Just don't let your friends and family use meth.
Oh, people don't like it when you're all uptight about drugs.  I'm not that sort, just as long as nobody makes me do drugs.


My gut says that when statistics show such an intense spike over a short Period of time it is not a perfect reflection of really. For example when looking at violence or wage numbers that show such changes what has usually happened is a change in how the statistics are calculated and a redefinition of cut off points.


While that seems reasonable, I think that there's so much social damaged caused by the widespread addiction that we need a major social change. I'd go with the supposedly far left option and decriminalize meth while at the same time majorly expanding funds for local health care facilities. We need something like a newer New Deal to revitalize these communities, and putting addicts in jail does nothing to actually make them clean, I think.



The solution is easy.

1. Build a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border and patrol it for drug cartels. (solves the supply problem)

2. Make immigration easier. (solves the political problem, in combination with 1)

3. If you get caught doing hard drugs, you should go to forced rehabilitation which progressively limits your freedoms depending on number of offenses, but is separate from prison. (compromise between victimless crime/freedom of choice)

4. Decriminalize softer drugs - no forced rehabilitation, although services will be available for free. (it kind of works)

5. Give everyone a Universal Basic income of $1,000/month which is tied to a sliding scale based on how often they have been caught doing hard drugs (soft drugs excluded), such that they lose money the more they are caught but can regain it if they are clean for a period of time. (incentive to not do drugs)


How would a wall stop the cartels when it's literally possible for an average person to throw anything they wanted over the barrier?


Yeah, I agree. The Wall has already been thouroughly debunked as a bad idea by structural engineers and security experts. I don't know why this keeps being considered as an option by so many people.

(of course I know why, but it's not polite to say it)



That's not how engineering works. In engineering, you're presented with the ideal and do everything you can to achieve it. Publications like https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/why-wall-wont-work are politically biased, since instead of asking, "How can we make the wall work?" they look at a single proposal and tear it down. This is the misapplication of knowledge. Articles that appear to be scientific, such as these, do science and engineering a disservice, in that people grow to distrust people in those fields. It's not an honest article. And as you didn't provide any citation for your "thoroughly debunked" claim, I can only assume any article you provide will be of a similar quality.

Just casually reading through the article, I'm able to come up with potential work-arounds to the presented problems - how much moreso a dedicated team with an adequate budget on the project.

People who claim the wall won't work, are missing the point. The point is to reduce illegal immigration to much more reasonable levels, and that's not necessarily through the allegory of the beautiful stone wall.


>And as you didn't provide any citation for your "thoroughly debunked" claim, I can only assume any article you provide will be of a similar quality.
I actually had a very long discussion on this in which I posted multiple sources, from acredited structural engineers, and proposals from the companies tasked with giving the best possible estimates.

But thank you, for that nice assumption.
there's plenty of sources in this thread

I won't go over it again, it was a pain in the first place and it's not worth it now.

You're the one missing the point, thinking you have all the answers to this problem. You propose a simple solution to a nationwide systemic problem, with a multitude of complicated factors and all you're willing to do is give articles "casual" glances.

"The solution is easy"

"Just casually reading through the article"

"I'm able to come up with potential workarounds"

It's not just that the wall won't work, it's that the wall is too expensive, won't work, will take too long, and would replace infrastructure that is already built and functioning. The US has a problem of too much security, not a problem of too little. And furthermore, of course the infrastructure should function efficiently, but focusing on one single feature of security, reducing complex social and systemic problems to single-faceted problems with simple solutions, this is to truly miss the point.


We're not talking about illegal immigration. We're talking about drug trafficking. A whole other issue.

As long as it's literally possible for some random dude to throw whatever the hell baggie of drugs he wants over the wall, the objection is going to stand.


People can throw what ever the hell bag of whatever the hell drug they want at me, I'm not going to just pick it up and do it for the fuck of it.

People who get addicted to drugs didn't mean to get that way. We know a lot of reasons why people get addicted to them, but I have seen very little help, from communities, to prevent people from getting into those addictions or helping them to get clean if they do get addicted.

That's part of the problem, but not the only one.

[Return] [Go to top]
[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]