[HN Gopher] How does fentanyl get into the US?
___________________________________________________________________
How does fentanyl get into the US?
Author : tartoran
Score : 48 points
Date : 2025-02-04 16:39 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.bbc.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.bbc.com)
| jf22 wrote:
| It's amazing the US started a trade war over 74,000 deaths from
| Fentanyl when heart disease causes 10x more deaths.
| bigdict wrote:
| Have you seen the RFK confirmation hearing?
| knowaveragejoe wrote:
| 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.
| wavefunction wrote:
| 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
| moate wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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?
|
| [0] https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-discuss-tariffs-
| canadi...
| leptons wrote:
| > 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.
| mvdtnz wrote:
| You may not care about drug deaths, but many people do.
| moate wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > Sweetheart
|
| Really gross mate.
| sashank_1509 wrote:
| A bad comparison. Fentanyl deaths are fully avoidable, heart
| diseases have existed forever.
| BudaDude wrote:
| They are also for the most part avoidable
| lnxg33k1 wrote:
| If you start to ban cigarettes, mcdonalds and similar, also
| many heart diseases can be avoided
| dboreham wrote:
| [flagged]
| slothtrop wrote:
| 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.
| bluGill wrote:
| 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.
| culi wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| What's the life expectancy again in non-industrial
| societies?
| aylmao wrote:
| Working on US healthcare affordability would avoid plenty of
| these (and many other) deaths.
| tayo42 wrote:
| get rid of fentanyl and how many go back to overdosing on
| heroine and oxycodone etc...
| slothtrop wrote:
| Heart disease is more preventable than given credence.
| Prevention is the best medicine.
|
| Vehicle deaths are also avoidable.
| Der_Einzige wrote:
| But that war (against metabolic syndrome) is already won
| because of Ozempic/Wegovy/Zepbound. Give it 20 years.
| ge96 wrote:
| 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.
| Izikiel43 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| bhaney wrote:
| > 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?
| ge96 wrote:
| 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.
| aylmao wrote:
| 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".
| sempron64 wrote:
| 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.
|
| https://data.worldobesity.org/region/european-union-
| uk-1/#da...
| aylmao wrote:
| 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.
|
| [1] https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/surgeon-
| general-soci...
|
| [2] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S22
| 1265701...
| keybored wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| "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 wrote:
| > 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.
| tartoran wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| >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.
| bhaney wrote:
| If we could put tariffs on heart disease we would
| gberger wrote:
| We can, though? A sugar tax.
| from-nibly wrote:
| We don't profit from fentanyl deaths.
| hammock wrote:
| We grow that at home. (Corn, soy and sugar)
|
| In fact the tariffs will help fund the farm bills.
| culi wrote:
| US agriculture is already arguably the most heavily
| subsidized in the world
| readthenotes1 wrote:
| Why don't we ban automobiles since they cause 41,000 deaths per
| year?
| bluGill wrote:
| A lot more people use automobiles. Hard drugs are used, but
| very few people use them, many have never tried them.
| coderc wrote:
| 74,000 is the approximate number for just 2023. The number was
| even higher in 2022. It's not "just" 74,000 deaths.
| nomel wrote:
| ~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).
|
| [1] https://usafacts.org/articles/are-fentanyl-overdose-
| deaths-r...
|
| [2] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/overdose-
| deaths-a...
| michaelt wrote:
| 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.
| jollyllama wrote:
| What's the YLL stats on fent vs heart disease?
| scythe wrote:
| 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.
| invalidOrTaken wrote:
| wait til you hear what they did in 2001!
| polotics wrote:
| 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...
| fngjdflmdflg wrote:
| 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]
|
| [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/
| inglor_cz wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > 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.
| blastonico wrote:
| I don't like Trump but I have to admit he's doing a great job
| here.
| dgfitz wrote:
| 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.
| ge96 wrote:
| Project 2025 is crazy when you read off the items
| ks2048 wrote:
| 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_ wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| TwoNineA wrote:
| 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!
|
| How are those egg prices coming?
| oremolten wrote:
| 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.
| kjksf wrote:
| In 2024 Canada had those tariffs on US goods:
| - milk: 270% - cheese: 245% - butter: 298%
| - poultry: 238% - eggs: 163%
|
| 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.
| polotics wrote:
| source?
| aylmao wrote:
| 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]
|
| [1] https://www.farmprogress.com/management/does-canada-
| really-c... https://www.farmprogress.com/management/does-
| canada-really-c...
| fooster wrote:
| 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.
|
| https://economics.td.com/ca-canada-us-trade-balance
| nullhole wrote:
| 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.
| aredox wrote:
| Mexico and Canada agreed to do something... They were already
| doing with Biden.
|
| "Hook, line and sinker", heh?
| blargthorwars wrote:
| Mexico agreed to an _additional_ 10,000 troops.
| bdcravens wrote:
| 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)
|
| https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/presidents-us-
| mexico-...
| bdcravens wrote:
| 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_ wrote:
| 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.
| senectus1 wrote:
| 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
| spiderfarmer wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > 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.
| spiderfarmer wrote:
| 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.
| janalsncm wrote:
| 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.
| henvic wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| culi wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > _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]_
|
| * 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
| Goulao 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.
| bdcravens wrote:
| 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.
| be_erik wrote:
| 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.
| EA-3167 wrote:
| 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?
| gosub100 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| robotnikman wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| Do you expect such development in the case of the current
| president?
| EA-3167 wrote:
| 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.
| dylan604 wrote:
| 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
| tayo42 wrote:
| 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
| drpfenderson wrote:
| 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.
|
| 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...
| aylmao wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| One might argue they de facto decriminalized drug
| consumption and personal-usage-level possession in LA and
| SF.
| slothtrop wrote:
| 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.
| fortylove wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > _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._
|
| * 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.
| bdcravens wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| Were subjected to a tyranny of "experts" :(
| twic wrote:
| > 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?
| Beijinger wrote:
| Phenethyl bromide5 Propionyl chloride4 4-Anilino-N-
| phenethylpiperidine (4-ANPP)2 N-phenethyl-4-piperidone (NPP)2
| Propionic anhydride2 Sodium borohydride1
| bdcravens wrote:
| One thing this article doesn't cover is WHO is doing the
| trafficking, and in most cases, it's Americans.
|
| 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...
| coliveira wrote:
| 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.
| mtlmtlmtlmtl wrote:
| 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.
| be_erik wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| >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 wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| Are you channeling Bob Saget?
| slothtrop wrote:
| Is opium considered the least harsh/dangerous variant?
| vlovich123 wrote:
| 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.
| slothtrop wrote:
| Oxycontin was overprescribed for pain, it's not available for
| recreational use.
|
| Possibly it's just too potent for legalization to be viable.
| jdietrich wrote:
| Oxycodone (Oxycontin) has similar potency to diamorphine
| (heroin) and is ~2 orders of magnitude less potent than
| fentanyl.
|
| https://www.gloshospitals.nhs.uk/healthcare-
| professionals/tr...
| gedy wrote:
| > 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.
| aylmao wrote:
| > 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.
| 1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote:
| 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.
| aylmao wrote:
| 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.
| badosu wrote:
| It's revealing how many sub designs they found on south
| american jungles, but few actually found in traffic or on the
| targets coast.
| janalsncm wrote:
| 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.
| coliveira wrote:
| 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.
| Retric wrote:
| 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.
| 0cf8612b2e1e wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| Border crossings are independent of length. But they
| actually do have trade, and even people crossing the
| border.
|
| https://www.voanews.com/a/korean-industrial-zone-reopens-
| as-...
| beart wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| verdverm wrote:
| 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%)
|
| Here is one such study: https://immigrationforum.org/wp-
| content/uploads/2023/10/llic...
| slothtrop wrote:
| So, they were half-right since that's tantamount to
| "corruption in the US"
| verdverm wrote:
| 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?
| motohagiography wrote:
| 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.
| janalsncm wrote:
| 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.
| downut wrote:
| 133 comments and the Sackler family has yet to be mentioned. I
| don't think the comments here are well informed.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-02-04 23:01 UTC)