Trump's intention to invade Mexico
August 11, 2024 8:57 AM Subscribe
Military attack on drug dealers, close the border, deport millions of people. What could possibly go wrong? Some details about what could go wrong as result of interlocking bad policy. Mexico is a major trading partner these days.
I feel this does a disservice to Bugs Bunny and his proven record of repelling invaders both foreign and domestic, only when provoked.
Of course, you realize, THIS means war.
posted by wabbittwax at 9:21 AM on August 11 [33 favorites]
Of course, you realize, THIS means war.
posted by wabbittwax at 9:21 AM on August 11 [33 favorites]
ok so next we bomb/invade Canada? Criminal networks are shifting from fentanyl imports to Canadian-made product
posted by robbyrobs at 10:09 AM on August 11 [1 favorite]
posted by robbyrobs at 10:09 AM on August 11 [1 favorite]
It also seems rather like Wiley Coyote, just unfortunately in the real world.
posted by Nancy Lebovitz at 10:11 AM on August 11 [1 favorite]
posted by Nancy Lebovitz at 10:11 AM on August 11 [1 favorite]
While these guns are illegal in Mexico, they’re perfectly legal to make and sell in the U.S. They end up in Mexico through theft, straw purchases, and private owners. U.S.-based gun traffickers have also been caught shipping illegal, military-grade weapons to Mexican cartels.
Under Trump and the Republican logic, Mexico’s failure to stop a drug that is killing Americans gives the U.S. the right to bomb drug facilities and assassinate cartel leaders without consulting the Mexican government. But by the same logic, America’s failure to stop the illegal flow of guns into Mexico, which have wrought absolute carnage in that country, also gives Mexico the right to bomb gun factories, assassinate gun shop owners, or take out the heads of gun companies.
The US is the problem. But we cannot acknowledge that, of course!! we send the guns, we demand the drugs. Mexico is our neighbor and a trading partner. we cannot just stroll in there and start another Vietnam, Afghanistan etc., but I guess some Repugnicants don't have a problem with that.
(when I go do GOTV later this year and I encounter the usual smugly privileged young white men who don't vote, I'm going to suggest to them that if Trump gets re-elected he could very well try to re-instate the draft to staff these illegal invasions. They will be the ones getting sent there to kill and be maimed, blown up, traumatized.)
posted by supermedusa at 10:47 AM on August 11 [17 favorites]
Under Trump and the Republican logic, Mexico’s failure to stop a drug that is killing Americans gives the U.S. the right to bomb drug facilities and assassinate cartel leaders without consulting the Mexican government. But by the same logic, America’s failure to stop the illegal flow of guns into Mexico, which have wrought absolute carnage in that country, also gives Mexico the right to bomb gun factories, assassinate gun shop owners, or take out the heads of gun companies.
The US is the problem. But we cannot acknowledge that, of course!! we send the guns, we demand the drugs. Mexico is our neighbor and a trading partner. we cannot just stroll in there and start another Vietnam, Afghanistan etc., but I guess some Repugnicants don't have a problem with that.
(when I go do GOTV later this year and I encounter the usual smugly privileged young white men who don't vote, I'm going to suggest to them that if Trump gets re-elected he could very well try to re-instate the draft to staff these illegal invasions. They will be the ones getting sent there to kill and be maimed, blown up, traumatized.)
posted by supermedusa at 10:47 AM on August 11 [17 favorites]
Of all the shitty things about US foreign policy, the 'war on drugs' is one of the shittiest. It's like bombing the local liquor store because you're alcoholic.
posted by signal at 10:54 AM on August 11 [44 favorites]
posted by signal at 10:54 AM on August 11 [44 favorites]
Cut to an elderly couple at Qdoba complaining because there are no avocado slices on their chicken quesadilla. Behind them is a family mourning the loss of their parent due to a shortage of common antibiotics.
posted by credulous at 10:58 AM on August 11 [7 favorites]
posted by credulous at 10:58 AM on August 11 [7 favorites]
credulous, I don't know whether that was something you actually saw or a hypothetical, but I've actually talked with someone who resented needing to press 1 for English.
I believe we don't just need to stop the war on Drugs, we need to research better recreational drugs.
posted by Nancy Lebovitz at 11:18 AM on August 11 [7 favorites]
I believe we don't just need to stop the war on Drugs, we need to research better recreational drugs.
posted by Nancy Lebovitz at 11:18 AM on August 11 [7 favorites]
I’m always a little uncomfortable at how college-educated progressives (that’s me) get sucked into the legalize everything sledgehammer. Decriminalizing possession of most drugs make sense, but I’m not convinced we need a thriving legal market in various illegal drugs and much as some of us privileged folks may want to go all Ravey McRaverson to blow off steam after working on our thesis. I’m pretty bummed about how the pot efforts have gone for example; it’s just a bunch of corporate land grabs and centering of pot as some important piece of freedom. I think we still need to have strong anti-drug messaging and find ways for people to stay away from cocaine and shit. Basically me thinking I can handle drug X so we need to legalize it is kind of arrogant . The result is usually that a bunch of people in precarious positions end up on the rocks, and legal or illegal various shitty people’s pockets get lined.
Not to distract from the main points which are that Trump is an idiot, and the US is driving these problems with our guns and our insatiable bourgeois desire for drugs.
posted by caviar2d2 at 11:22 AM on August 11 [11 favorites]
Not to distract from the main points which are that Trump is an idiot, and the US is driving these problems with our guns and our insatiable bourgeois desire for drugs.
posted by caviar2d2 at 11:22 AM on August 11 [11 favorites]
ok so next we bomb/invade Canada?
They'd have pretext to invade the US and launch military attacks on its media and energy companies, given the extent to which American right-wing propaganda and fossil fuel interests have fomented violent civil unrest.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 11:22 AM on August 11 [4 favorites]
They'd have pretext to invade the US and launch military attacks on its media and energy companies, given the extent to which American right-wing propaganda and fossil fuel interests have fomented violent civil unrest.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 11:22 AM on August 11 [4 favorites]
There's always the fear of the cartels that keeps getting dredged up by the GOP. Thing is, for the most part they stay on their side of the border (if they pull something on this side it's typically highly targeted.) They know that they don't want the attention of the Americans any more than they already have.
But if the US were to start attacking Mexico, then all bets are off. The cartels are outgunned by the US military and they know that full well. They also know just how effective guerrilla warfare can be against that same military. The cartels have advanced communications, people networks all over the country and into the US, a metric ton of weapons, they know the territory, they can blend in very easily and they have a penchant for revenge. I don't think right-wingers understand just how badly this could destabilize America, and your typical "I got a bunch of ARs and thousands of rounds of ammunition" type would be no match for a cartel hit if they made themselves too well known.
posted by azpenguin at 11:36 AM on August 11 [18 favorites]
But if the US were to start attacking Mexico, then all bets are off. The cartels are outgunned by the US military and they know that full well. They also know just how effective guerrilla warfare can be against that same military. The cartels have advanced communications, people networks all over the country and into the US, a metric ton of weapons, they know the territory, they can blend in very easily and they have a penchant for revenge. I don't think right-wingers understand just how badly this could destabilize America, and your typical "I got a bunch of ARs and thousands of rounds of ammunition" type would be no match for a cartel hit if they made themselves too well known.
posted by azpenguin at 11:36 AM on August 11 [18 favorites]
We need to limit the quantities of drugs that people are allowed to possess, and then we need to do the same for money.
posted by Faint of Butt at 11:48 AM on August 11 [15 favorites]
posted by Faint of Butt at 11:48 AM on August 11 [15 favorites]
There's always the fear of the cartels that keeps getting dredged up by the GOP. Thing is, for the most part they stay on their side of the border [...] But if the US were to start attacking Mexico, then all bets are off.
It's a thing, how the people who shout the loudest about how something must be destroyed and/or oppressed because it's a lethal, terrifying dragon that won't hesitate to eat us all seem to not actually believe their own rhetoric and just keep pushing everything closer and closer to exactly that same dragon's maw.
posted by trig at 11:50 AM on August 11 [3 favorites]
It's a thing, how the people who shout the loudest about how something must be destroyed and/or oppressed because it's a lethal, terrifying dragon that won't hesitate to eat us all seem to not actually believe their own rhetoric and just keep pushing everything closer and closer to exactly that same dragon's maw.
posted by trig at 11:50 AM on August 11 [3 favorites]
Waiting for the “I never thought leopards would eat my coke plug’s face!” moment for these guys
posted by Jon_Evil at 11:56 AM on August 11 [2 favorites]
posted by Jon_Evil at 11:56 AM on August 11 [2 favorites]
we need to research better recreational drugs
From the producer's point of view, fentanyl is a great drug. Reuters reported that it only cost them $3600 to get the ingredients for $3 million worth of product.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 12:02 PM on August 11 [5 favorites]
From the producer's point of view, fentanyl is a great drug. Reuters reported that it only cost them $3600 to get the ingredients for $3 million worth of product.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 12:02 PM on August 11 [5 favorites]
When people say it’s a demand problem, what exactly is that supposed to mean policy-wise? Stricter low-level enforcement? Full legalization? Hoping better support and safety net policies are enough to get people off of drugs?
I don’t think any domestic drug policy decision of the past 20 years comes near the impact of the illegal market switching to fentanyl analogs. That’s a supply problem, though a thorny one, because the whole point is that it’s easy to smuggle and small-scale manufacturing can go a long way. Talking about invading Mexico is stupid grandstanding - I don’t think there’s any way to approach this without international cooperation - but efforts against top-level supply do seem likely to be part of any solution.
posted by atoxyl at 12:09 PM on August 11 [3 favorites]
I don’t think any domestic drug policy decision of the past 20 years comes near the impact of the illegal market switching to fentanyl analogs. That’s a supply problem, though a thorny one, because the whole point is that it’s easy to smuggle and small-scale manufacturing can go a long way. Talking about invading Mexico is stupid grandstanding - I don’t think there’s any way to approach this without international cooperation - but efforts against top-level supply do seem likely to be part of any solution.
posted by atoxyl at 12:09 PM on August 11 [3 favorites]
I still believe there's an honest living, even a pretty nice living, to be made by selling decent products.
posted by Nancy Lebovitz at 12:09 PM on August 11 [7 favorites]
posted by Nancy Lebovitz at 12:09 PM on August 11 [7 favorites]
Genius chess move, starting a war with the cartels while simultaneously sending them a million new recruits to be drafted into their non-volunteer guerilla army.
posted by credulous at 12:32 PM on August 11 [16 favorites]
posted by credulous at 12:32 PM on August 11 [16 favorites]
Hoping better support and safety net policies are enough to get people off of drugs?
That's not the primary reason for better support and safety net policies but yes, let's start with that.
posted by Foosnark at 12:43 PM on August 11 [6 favorites]
That's not the primary reason for better support and safety net policies but yes, let's start with that.
posted by Foosnark at 12:43 PM on August 11 [6 favorites]
Amen, caviar2d2. It’s been fascinating watching all the pot wars in Model Liberal Massachusetts. When it comes to opening a pot shop, they ask you “ok how much moola avez-vous? The license is $1,000 more than that.” Then they started taxing the shit out of the users, to the point where people are just going back to buying it illegally the way they used to.
posted by Melismata at 1:02 PM on August 11 [3 favorites]
posted by Melismata at 1:02 PM on August 11 [3 favorites]
Or we could, you know, just fix the economy.
posted by toodleydoodley at 1:52 PM on August 11 [10 favorites]
posted by toodleydoodley at 1:52 PM on August 11 [10 favorites]
Invading Mexico would ultimately establish the circumstances for the downfall of the United States.
That's because, traditionally, the USA is protected by oceans. It's logistically very difficult to invade.
But if you permanently alienate and make an enemy of either the Canadians or the Mexicans, suddenly you have a very large, very hard to defend border, alongside with a supporting force of millions of people who speak the local language.
Russia and China would love nothing more than to be able to have basing agreements with the Mexican government. It would be the end of the USA's impunity.
posted by LeRoienJaune at 2:15 PM on August 11 [18 favorites]
That's because, traditionally, the USA is protected by oceans. It's logistically very difficult to invade.
But if you permanently alienate and make an enemy of either the Canadians or the Mexicans, suddenly you have a very large, very hard to defend border, alongside with a supporting force of millions of people who speak the local language.
Russia and China would love nothing more than to be able to have basing agreements with the Mexican government. It would be the end of the USA's impunity.
posted by LeRoienJaune at 2:15 PM on August 11 [18 favorites]
We need to decriminalize drugs. I hate to say this. Drugs have done a great deal of harm in my personal life, it kills people and I wish people wouldn't do them. I have never even tried a hard drug and I have smoked two joints where I ended up puking both times, but that is irrelevant.
The only thing we have achieved by criminalizing drugs is to create and boost a huge underground economy which is way beyond the control of any imaginable authority. And because this economy is so huge and so underground, they have their own order, which is incredibly violent. Like, they can't call the cops if someone steals a pallet of coke. So they have to punish the perpetrators in their own ways. And sometimes, normal people stand in the way, like one of my neighbors did.
Because I hate drugs, I have friends who are strongly for the current criminalization and they have all the good arguments that I truly understand and agree with. But to be honest, they are like the prohibitionists a hundred years ago. Their zeal led to the creation and ride of the mafia in the US. And today after prohibition ended we still have alcoholics, but we can help them and help their families. Unfortunately, we didn't end the mobs, because while the war on alcohol ended, the war on drugs began.
posted by mumimor at 2:16 PM on August 11 [19 favorites]
The only thing we have achieved by criminalizing drugs is to create and boost a huge underground economy which is way beyond the control of any imaginable authority. And because this economy is so huge and so underground, they have their own order, which is incredibly violent. Like, they can't call the cops if someone steals a pallet of coke. So they have to punish the perpetrators in their own ways. And sometimes, normal people stand in the way, like one of my neighbors did.
Because I hate drugs, I have friends who are strongly for the current criminalization and they have all the good arguments that I truly understand and agree with. But to be honest, they are like the prohibitionists a hundred years ago. Their zeal led to the creation and ride of the mafia in the US. And today after prohibition ended we still have alcoholics, but we can help them and help their families. Unfortunately, we didn't end the mobs, because while the war on alcohol ended, the war on drugs began.
posted by mumimor at 2:16 PM on August 11 [19 favorites]
It is hard to argue that we haven’t tried making drugs illegal hard enough, and it’s hard not to notice how intimately intertwined the war on drugs is with American white supremacy. The surest way to reduce the demand for drugs is to reduce the misery the U.S. inflicts on its citizens in innumerable ways.
posted by Horace Rumpole at 2:24 PM on August 11 [13 favorites]
posted by Horace Rumpole at 2:24 PM on August 11 [13 favorites]
I’m not convinced we need a thriving legal market in various illegal drugs and much as some of us privileged folks may want to go all Ravey McRaverson to blow off steam after working on our thesis.
The thing is, when you have a legal market in drugs, you have a safe market in drugs. If you have legal cocaine, you have cocaine without additives, measured out into safe doses. There’s no need for fentanyl if you can get safe drugs. I’m not sure if there exists a safe dose of meth, but if there does, I am sure people would prefer to buy it. That’s why I support legalization rather than simply decriminalizing drugs.
posted by corb at 2:59 PM on August 11 [27 favorites]
The thing is, when you have a legal market in drugs, you have a safe market in drugs. If you have legal cocaine, you have cocaine without additives, measured out into safe doses. There’s no need for fentanyl if you can get safe drugs. I’m not sure if there exists a safe dose of meth, but if there does, I am sure people would prefer to buy it. That’s why I support legalization rather than simply decriminalizing drugs.
posted by corb at 2:59 PM on August 11 [27 favorites]
Damn right.
Safe markets are good!
caviar2d2, and no one should drop dead because they took a pill at a show, or snorted a line, or whatever.
Fentanyl is cheap to make, and can kill you pretty fast. Would never take a random drug these days.
posted by Windopaene at 3:08 PM on August 11 [5 favorites]
Safe markets are good!
caviar2d2, and no one should drop dead because they took a pill at a show, or snorted a line, or whatever.
Fentanyl is cheap to make, and can kill you pretty fast. Would never take a random drug these days.
posted by Windopaene at 3:08 PM on August 11 [5 favorites]
The thing is, when you have a legal market in drugs, you have a safe market in drugs
not to mention, all the reduced need for all the murdering and weapons would be nice.
it takes lots and lots of violence to subvert the state monopoly on violence; there are all kinds of violent 'rites of passage' to ensure loyalty within gangs, which leads to cultures of horor, gunslinging and ridiculousness
making the drug trade into a regular business would lower the stakes, and make the rituals of mutual contract revert to normal rituals, like prostitution, hunting trips, and golf, instead of like, kidnapping women and burying their bodies in the desert
posted by eustatic at 3:13 PM on August 11 [8 favorites]
not to mention, all the reduced need for all the murdering and weapons would be nice.
it takes lots and lots of violence to subvert the state monopoly on violence; there are all kinds of violent 'rites of passage' to ensure loyalty within gangs, which leads to cultures of horor, gunslinging and ridiculousness
making the drug trade into a regular business would lower the stakes, and make the rituals of mutual contract revert to normal rituals, like prostitution, hunting trips, and golf, instead of like, kidnapping women and burying their bodies in the desert
posted by eustatic at 3:13 PM on August 11 [8 favorites]
This might just be a point of terminology but as corb says, decriminalization is too little too late (and in fact already mostly a reality in quite a few places). The biggest drug problem we have in the US is that the supply of drugs is exponentially more dangerous than it was 20 years ago. Unironically I do think we’d be better off if we could go back to the Purdue Pharma days - that era saw a long slow rise in overdoses, but it was nothing compared to what happened afterwards.
There’s no need for fentanyl if you can get safe drugs
It’s still cheaper and more potent. I’m all for making safe drugs more available but there’s still going to be a reason to invest in making unsafe drugs less available, especially since it’s unlikely that safe supply will ever happen with no strings attached.
posted by atoxyl at 3:30 PM on August 11 [2 favorites]
There’s no need for fentanyl if you can get safe drugs
It’s still cheaper and more potent. I’m all for making safe drugs more available but there’s still going to be a reason to invest in making unsafe drugs less available, especially since it’s unlikely that safe supply will ever happen with no strings attached.
posted by atoxyl at 3:30 PM on August 11 [2 favorites]
I’m not sure if there exists a safe dose of meth, but if there does, I am sure people would prefer to buy it
Low doses of meth are not particularly more dangerous than low doses of amphetamine (i.e. adderall etc.) but the people using high doses of meth don’t necessarily want to be using low doses. There are some ideas for medication-assisted treatment for stimulant addiction but it’s not quite as straightforward as opioid maintenance because it’s less about the physical withdrawal syndrome to begin with. That’s an overlooked aspect of drug policy, sometimes - each drug is different!
posted by atoxyl at 3:36 PM on August 11 [5 favorites]
Low doses of meth are not particularly more dangerous than low doses of amphetamine (i.e. adderall etc.) but the people using high doses of meth don’t necessarily want to be using low doses. There are some ideas for medication-assisted treatment for stimulant addiction but it’s not quite as straightforward as opioid maintenance because it’s less about the physical withdrawal syndrome to begin with. That’s an overlooked aspect of drug policy, sometimes - each drug is different!
posted by atoxyl at 3:36 PM on August 11 [5 favorites]
So I live in a state with legal pot. And the thing is - I don’t actually think it’s really *much* more expensive than the illegal pot, but *also*, it has *made the illegal pot better as well*. Illegal pot supply is mostly “people who work the legal pot business are taking some and selling it on the side without taxes” or “people who work the legal pot business are taking some and baking it into non-shelf-stable baked goods”.
So most of the time, most people use the legal stuff. Because it’s more convenient, and safer, and who wants to risk going to jail over something being 5$ cheaper?
If you want to control overdoses, really you need to control the despair making people want to overdose: but that’s a harder and less sexy sell.
posted by corb at 3:38 PM on August 11 [15 favorites]
So most of the time, most people use the legal stuff. Because it’s more convenient, and safer, and who wants to risk going to jail over something being 5$ cheaper?
If you want to control overdoses, really you need to control the despair making people want to overdose: but that’s a harder and less sexy sell.
posted by corb at 3:38 PM on August 11 [15 favorites]
Since this is about Trump's policy suggestions, it should be mentioned that he is very obviously on some sort of drugs, most likely adderall, maybe others too. Don Jr. is pretty obviously on coke. So what Trump is saying is that poor brown people should be killed for using and/or smuggling drugs while it is just fine for rich white people. I don't know how this can ever get into the mainstream media, but it should be there every single fucking day.
posted by mumimor at 3:43 PM on August 11 [12 favorites]
posted by mumimor at 3:43 PM on August 11 [12 favorites]
Always has been, mumimor. And let's not kid ourself. It's also about having a constant supply of cheap exploitable, Black and brown labor from mass incarceration.
posted by supermedusa at 3:49 PM on August 11 [7 favorites]
posted by supermedusa at 3:49 PM on August 11 [7 favorites]
"If that flow of cheap or free labor were to stop, I think the fear is that the entire institution would possibly need to shut down"... "It's not an unrealistic fear because speaking to the inertia of this whole system, this has been the way that we've manned these facilities for generations." [npr]
posted by HearHere at 4:11 PM on August 11 [4 favorites]
posted by HearHere at 4:11 PM on August 11 [4 favorites]
donald trump is such an incredibly buffoonish idiot. and this is the best the republican party can manage.
posted by bluesky43 at 4:13 PM on August 11 [2 favorites]
posted by bluesky43 at 4:13 PM on August 11 [2 favorites]
I guess the only hope is that, just as last time he was President, his command was so incoherent and disorganised that he didn't achieve most of what he promised. Unfortunately, plenty of people are working hard to ensure this isn't the case in a second term. Many of those people are more than willing to burn the whole world down as long as it puts money in their pockets.
posted by dg at 4:57 PM on August 11 [3 favorites]
posted by dg at 4:57 PM on August 11 [3 favorites]
"Operation “Intercept” and the Nixon administration’s perceived diplomatic success of unilateral coercion—an enforcement tactic in kind with his campaign pledge to restore “law and order”—formed the proof-of-concept for the drug supply control ideology that has underpinned U.S. illicit narcotics strategy in Latin America for more than half a century. Nixon’s failure to craft a sustainable diplomatic solution with Mexico at the inception of the “drug war” explains in part why outcomes for the U.S. antinarcotics efforts have fallen well short of their goals of reducing illicit drug use and related crimes in the United States."
posted by clavdivs at 5:35 PM on August 11 [1 favorite]
posted by clavdivs at 5:35 PM on August 11 [1 favorite]
Low doses of meth are not particularly more dangerous than low doses of amphetamine
Never trust a drug that "helps" you work longer hours.
posted by mikelieman at 5:38 PM on August 11 [3 favorites]
Never trust a drug that "helps" you work longer hours.
posted by mikelieman at 5:38 PM on August 11 [3 favorites]
Pobre México, tan lejos de Dios y tan cerca de Estados Unidos.
posted by gimonca at 6:07 PM on August 11 [12 favorites]
posted by gimonca at 6:07 PM on August 11 [12 favorites]
Genius chess move, starting a war with the cartels while simultaneously sending them a million new recruits to be drafted into their non-volunteer guerilla army.
This, and also creating a bunch of desperate new refugees who see the risk of crossing the border as lower than the risk of staying in the war zone.
posted by OnceUponATime at 8:00 PM on August 11 [2 favorites]
This, and also creating a bunch of desperate new refugees who see the risk of crossing the border as lower than the risk of staying in the war zone.
posted by OnceUponATime at 8:00 PM on August 11 [2 favorites]
Perhaps it “barely makes the radar” because no one takes it particularly seriously?
Trump has made it clear that he will say literally anything if he thinks it will help him get elected. So why are we taking any of it to heart?
Also: Do you know what’s really missing from this cycle? Him promising to finish the wall.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 8:01 PM on August 11 [4 favorites]
Trump has made it clear that he will say literally anything if he thinks it will help him get elected. So why are we taking any of it to heart?
Also: Do you know what’s really missing from this cycle? Him promising to finish the wall.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 8:01 PM on August 11 [4 favorites]
I’m pretty bummed about how the pot efforts have gone for example; it’s just a bunch of corporate land grabs and centering of pot as some important piece of freedom."
Nah, in California, it's Hmong labor for Mexican cartels who launder money through China. The choices we made in terms of expecting a huge legal market have been wildly undercut by the thriving black market.
"There’s no need for fentanyl if you can get safe drugs."
First, there's the folks who are already hooked on fentanyl, who prefer fentanyl because fentanyl has extra terrible withdrawals. Then, there's the folks who prefer it because there's a more intense high. Then, there's the fact that the concentrations allow lower volumes for the same price. Then, there's the general propensity of the American consumer to prefer cheap shit over quality product.
"I’m not sure if there exists a safe dose of meth, but if there does, I am sure people would prefer to buy it."
There's a bunch of safe doses for methaphetamine salts — that's what most ADHD drugs are. People do prefer to buy it, but it's had notable supply constraints.
The thing is, when you have a legal market in drugs, you have a safe market in drugs."
Which brings me to the thesis, which is absolutely not reflected in the overall pharma space. The current opioid crisis started in large part with a legal market for controlled substances, and in fact, a loosening of regulation of controlled opioids.
This is a hard question without good options, and the effective answers are a lot more complicated than the simple Peter Tosh approach.
posted by klangklangston at 8:48 PM on August 11 [9 favorites]
Nah, in California, it's Hmong labor for Mexican cartels who launder money through China. The choices we made in terms of expecting a huge legal market have been wildly undercut by the thriving black market.
"There’s no need for fentanyl if you can get safe drugs."
First, there's the folks who are already hooked on fentanyl, who prefer fentanyl because fentanyl has extra terrible withdrawals. Then, there's the folks who prefer it because there's a more intense high. Then, there's the fact that the concentrations allow lower volumes for the same price. Then, there's the general propensity of the American consumer to prefer cheap shit over quality product.
"I’m not sure if there exists a safe dose of meth, but if there does, I am sure people would prefer to buy it."
There's a bunch of safe doses for methaphetamine salts — that's what most ADHD drugs are. People do prefer to buy it, but it's had notable supply constraints.
The thing is, when you have a legal market in drugs, you have a safe market in drugs."
Which brings me to the thesis, which is absolutely not reflected in the overall pharma space. The current opioid crisis started in large part with a legal market for controlled substances, and in fact, a loosening of regulation of controlled opioids.
This is a hard question without good options, and the effective answers are a lot more complicated than the simple Peter Tosh approach.
posted by klangklangston at 8:48 PM on August 11 [9 favorites]
"The simple Peter Tosh approach" to legalizing...hard drugs? If you're referring to the Rastafarian's famous song about decriminalizing ganja and applying it to the entire war on drugs and cartels, maybe stop doing that.
posted by unwordy at 10:11 PM on August 11 [2 favorites]
posted by unwordy at 10:11 PM on August 11 [2 favorites]
Do you know what’s really missing from this cycle? Him promising to finish the wall.
Counterproductive at this point. Pick a gap in any cultist's weeping and wailing and rending of garments about the southern border yawning totally open because Biden, ask them about the wall, and they'll tell you he already finished it. Promises made, promises kept! He means what he says! He's a straight talker!
posted by flabdablet at 10:17 PM on August 11 [3 favorites]
Counterproductive at this point. Pick a gap in any cultist's weeping and wailing and rending of garments about the southern border yawning totally open because Biden, ask them about the wall, and they'll tell you he already finished it. Promises made, promises kept! He means what he says! He's a straight talker!
posted by flabdablet at 10:17 PM on August 11 [3 favorites]
The current opioid crisis started in large part with a legal market for controlled substances, and in fact, a loosening of regulation of controlled opioids.
The pill era gave us a doubling of opioid deaths in a decade, but the post-pill-crackdown era tripled that again over the next decade and I guarantee nowadays many of those are people who have never seen an authentic OxyContin. It’s absolutely true that the availability of medical-grade drugs doesn’t eliminate all the dangers of drug use but if it were hypothetically possible to go back to the state of drugs in 2009 I think it would be a pretty easy public health decision.
posted by atoxyl at 10:57 PM on August 11 [2 favorites]
The pill era gave us a doubling of opioid deaths in a decade, but the post-pill-crackdown era tripled that again over the next decade and I guarantee nowadays many of those are people who have never seen an authentic OxyContin. It’s absolutely true that the availability of medical-grade drugs doesn’t eliminate all the dangers of drug use but if it were hypothetically possible to go back to the state of drugs in 2009 I think it would be a pretty easy public health decision.
posted by atoxyl at 10:57 PM on August 11 [2 favorites]
donald trump is such an incredibly buffoonish idiot. and this is the best the republican party can manage.
Donald Trump is a convicted criminal. And he is facing more trials. If he were just a buffoonish idiot, that would be another type of problem. But he is a real criminal, seeking the highest office in order to avoid punishment.
When the media downplay his actual convictions and the ongoing trials while they put forth his ridiculous "policy proposals", they are aiding in his gaslighting of the American people. In this case, like in many others, the proposal is directly opposite to his personal conduct: he does drugs.
There are other aspects of his conduct that run counter to his political platform, but that doesn't mean his team won't implement them: the fact that he has most likely paired for abortions never stopped him from appointing Supreme Court justices who would overturn Wade. And that is just one single thing he did that caused great harm. He, and the Republican Party he now owns are intent on creating a fascist, white suprematist USA and they will do it if he is elected.
Hitler and Mussolini seemed buffoonish too -- it comes with the job.
posted by mumimor at 11:50 PM on August 11 [5 favorites]
Donald Trump is a convicted criminal. And he is facing more trials. If he were just a buffoonish idiot, that would be another type of problem. But he is a real criminal, seeking the highest office in order to avoid punishment.
When the media downplay his actual convictions and the ongoing trials while they put forth his ridiculous "policy proposals", they are aiding in his gaslighting of the American people. In this case, like in many others, the proposal is directly opposite to his personal conduct: he does drugs.
There are other aspects of his conduct that run counter to his political platform, but that doesn't mean his team won't implement them: the fact that he has most likely paired for abortions never stopped him from appointing Supreme Court justices who would overturn Wade. And that is just one single thing he did that caused great harm. He, and the Republican Party he now owns are intent on creating a fascist, white suprematist USA and they will do it if he is elected.
Hitler and Mussolini seemed buffoonish too -- it comes with the job.
posted by mumimor at 11:50 PM on August 11 [5 favorites]
Asian automobile companies are building plants in Mexico that will manufacture parts for cars in the USA. So there's this too.
posted by DJZouke at 5:14 AM on August 12 [3 favorites]
posted by DJZouke at 5:14 AM on August 12 [3 favorites]
Donald Trump is proof that every bad thing that the left has ever said of the Republican Party is basically true.
posted by AlSweigart at 5:51 AM on August 12 [10 favorites]
posted by AlSweigart at 5:51 AM on August 12 [10 favorites]
When people say it’s a demand problem, what exactly is that supposed to mean policy-wise?
When I personally say it's a demand problem, I mean that the solution to this is to address the reason people turn to drugs
It means taking simple, obvious steps to decrease the human misery that saturates our society
That won't address all of the demand for illicit drugs, but it's a good place to start
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 1:28 PM on August 12 [1 favorite]
When I personally say it's a demand problem, I mean that the solution to this is to address the reason people turn to drugs
It means taking simple, obvious steps to decrease the human misery that saturates our society
That won't address all of the demand for illicit drugs, but it's a good place to start
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 1:28 PM on August 12 [1 favorite]
Okay but my point is that doing the same amount of drugs is considerably more likely to kill you than it was fifteen years ago, due entirely to changes on the supply side. I am in favor of combating that with a more regulated legit supply, but at some point that does require enforcement action against unsafe suppliers.
posted by atoxyl at 6:18 PM on August 12 [1 favorite]
posted by atoxyl at 6:18 PM on August 12 [1 favorite]
"The pill era gave us a doubling of opioid deaths in a decade, but the post-pill-crackdown era tripled that again over the next decade and I guarantee nowadays many of those are people who have never seen an authentic OxyContin. It’s absolutely true that the availability of medical-grade drugs doesn’t eliminate all the dangers of drug use but if it were hypothetically possible to go back to the state of drugs in 2009 I think it would be a pretty easy public health decision."
I was responding to the notion that legalizing opioids would lead to a safe supply of drugs. While, yes, many people would prefer the pre-crackdown status quo, I don't think the pre-crackdown status quo was particularly safe, and thinking that the post-crackdown problems would have existed without the pre-crackdown status quo kind of ignores that the pre-crackdown status quo was a shift that massively increased the number of opioid users in America.
posted by klangklangston at 7:52 PM on August 13
I was responding to the notion that legalizing opioids would lead to a safe supply of drugs. While, yes, many people would prefer the pre-crackdown status quo, I don't think the pre-crackdown status quo was particularly safe, and thinking that the post-crackdown problems would have existed without the pre-crackdown status quo kind of ignores that the pre-crackdown status quo was a shift that massively increased the number of opioid users in America.
posted by klangklangston at 7:52 PM on August 13
The overarching point is not whether legalizing drugs somehow magically makes drugs safe to use, which it obviously can't because chemistry; it's whether treating drug use and abuse as crime rather than a public health issue makes anything better, which it obviously can't because people.
Every argument in favour of continuing with law enforcement as the primary public policy response to drug use boils down to the idea that failing to do so "sends the wrong signal" and thereby encourages the uptake of drugs with high abuse potential. But it seems to me that if signals are the issue, then a huge, obvious, easy public health win can be had by dealing first with signals.
Legalize all substances, put the money formerly allocated to drug law enforcement into public health, and ban all drug advertising. All of it. Alcohol and tobacco included. Those two drugs kill more people and ruin more lives than all the others combined, and yet it's super rare to hear anything about "sending the wrong signal" associated with them.
When the house is on fire, arguing about which accelerants should stay illegal as the Sackler class continues to pump tankerloads of perfectly legal gasoline into its flaming heart is just stupid.
Drugs don't need advertising. People who want them will find them just by word of mouth alone.
posted by flabdablet at 9:33 PM on August 13 [1 favorite]
Every argument in favour of continuing with law enforcement as the primary public policy response to drug use boils down to the idea that failing to do so "sends the wrong signal" and thereby encourages the uptake of drugs with high abuse potential. But it seems to me that if signals are the issue, then a huge, obvious, easy public health win can be had by dealing first with signals.
Legalize all substances, put the money formerly allocated to drug law enforcement into public health, and ban all drug advertising. All of it. Alcohol and tobacco included. Those two drugs kill more people and ruin more lives than all the others combined, and yet it's super rare to hear anything about "sending the wrong signal" associated with them.
When the house is on fire, arguing about which accelerants should stay illegal as the Sackler class continues to pump tankerloads of perfectly legal gasoline into its flaming heart is just stupid.
Drugs don't need advertising. People who want them will find them just by word of mouth alone.
posted by flabdablet at 9:33 PM on August 13 [1 favorite]
I don't think the pre-crackdown status quo was particularly safe
I agree more than disagree on this point - in a “let’s be clear that legalization isn’t the panacea people make it out to be” way. Given that completely safe is unlikely to be an option that doesn’t rule out some level of legalization (the details probably depend on the drug) as a tool for solving some problems, but it absolutely has tradeoffs and absolutely doesn’t solve all of the problems.
thinking that the post-crackdown problems would have existed without the pre-crackdown status quo kind of ignores that the pre-crackdown status quo was a shift that massively increased the number of opioid users in America
I disagree more than agree on this point. The fentanyl black market ultimately has its roots in the “designer drug”/“research chemical” scene of the 00s, where entrepreneurial individuals discovered that the internet allowed them direct access to globalized chemical supply chains and suppliers in countries with lax oversight were all too happy to step up serve the emerging market. You can argue a sort of path dependence, where the existence of a large market for opioids is required to make the idea attractive and the revenues in turn empower the dealers, but the economics of “we can get a kilo of this shit mailed from China and it’s 50x as potent as heroin” are pretty hard to resist regardless. As I’ve been arguing in this thread, I suspect some effort to clamp down on this market would be necessary even if oxycodone were legal. As it stands the post-pill, designer fentanyl era is clearly more dangerous both for users who started in the pill era and for users who started afterwards. And I am not aware of a great deal of evidence that fewer people are starting afterwards, but I could be wrong, or it could be too early to tell.
posted by atoxyl at 9:57 PM on August 13
I agree more than disagree on this point - in a “let’s be clear that legalization isn’t the panacea people make it out to be” way. Given that completely safe is unlikely to be an option that doesn’t rule out some level of legalization (the details probably depend on the drug) as a tool for solving some problems, but it absolutely has tradeoffs and absolutely doesn’t solve all of the problems.
thinking that the post-crackdown problems would have existed without the pre-crackdown status quo kind of ignores that the pre-crackdown status quo was a shift that massively increased the number of opioid users in America
I disagree more than agree on this point. The fentanyl black market ultimately has its roots in the “designer drug”/“research chemical” scene of the 00s, where entrepreneurial individuals discovered that the internet allowed them direct access to globalized chemical supply chains and suppliers in countries with lax oversight were all too happy to step up serve the emerging market. You can argue a sort of path dependence, where the existence of a large market for opioids is required to make the idea attractive and the revenues in turn empower the dealers, but the economics of “we can get a kilo of this shit mailed from China and it’s 50x as potent as heroin” are pretty hard to resist regardless. As I’ve been arguing in this thread, I suspect some effort to clamp down on this market would be necessary even if oxycodone were legal. As it stands the post-pill, designer fentanyl era is clearly more dangerous both for users who started in the pill era and for users who started afterwards. And I am not aware of a great deal of evidence that fewer people are starting afterwards, but I could be wrong, or it could be too early to tell.
posted by atoxyl at 9:57 PM on August 13
Actually I probably am wrong on that last point at least for the youngest cohorts because drug use other than cannabis (but very much including alcohol) has broadly declined in the youngest cohorts, right?
posted by atoxyl at 10:13 PM on August 13 [1 favorite]
posted by atoxyl at 10:13 PM on August 13 [1 favorite]
In my fantasy world I can just walk into a chemist's and buy fentanyl in standardized dosages over the counter, and just as for every other opioid sold, the box includes a naloxone nasal spray kit.
posted by flabdablet at 10:14 PM on August 13 [1 favorite]
posted by flabdablet at 10:14 PM on August 13 [1 favorite]
the box includes a naloxone nasal spray kit
Having someone around to administer it does remain a problem, though (or it would for many people). In a serious opioid user fantasy world I suppose you can get some kind of device that monitors your respiration and does that automatically.
posted by atoxyl at 10:32 PM on August 13 [1 favorite]
Having someone around to administer it does remain a problem, though (or it would for many people). In a serious opioid user fantasy world I suppose you can get some kind of device that monitors your respiration and does that automatically.
posted by atoxyl at 10:32 PM on August 13 [1 favorite]
Yeah, in my fantasy world we call that kind of device a "drug buddy" or "sitter".
posted by flabdablet at 10:41 PM on August 13 [2 favorites]
posted by flabdablet at 10:41 PM on August 13 [2 favorites]
And of course my fantasy world is not so removed from reality that drug buddies are 100% reliable. But they're certainly more reliable, at least as far as preventing deaths goes, than cops armed with billy clubs, tasers and a spurious sense of moral superiority.
posted by flabdablet at 10:53 PM on August 13
posted by flabdablet at 10:53 PM on August 13
"You can argue a sort of path dependence, where the existence of a large market for opioids is required to make the idea attractive and the revenues in turn empower the dealers, but the economics of “we can get a kilo of this shit mailed from China and it’s 50x as potent as heroin” are pretty hard to resist regardless. As I’ve been arguing in this thread, I suspect some effort to clamp down on this market would be necessary even if oxycodone were legal. "
I do think path dependance, and a certain level of demand tipping is necessary, because fentanyl's drawbacks — microgram dosing, resistance to withdrawal meds, shorter high half-life—only work if you have people who are either already into opioids, and the US (and Canada) was already seeing a surge of heroin overdoses that came after the pill crackdown. Without that interstitial surge in heroin, I don't think you see fentanyl taking off the way it did. It's an inferior good, except for price per dose.
I think the rise of synthetic meth is a decent comparison, where it's had a similar (though not to the same level) fall in price per dose, but hasn't had the same curve of usage.
posted by klangklangston at 11:30 PM on August 13
I do think path dependance, and a certain level of demand tipping is necessary, because fentanyl's drawbacks — microgram dosing, resistance to withdrawal meds, shorter high half-life—only work if you have people who are either already into opioids, and the US (and Canada) was already seeing a surge of heroin overdoses that came after the pill crackdown. Without that interstitial surge in heroin, I don't think you see fentanyl taking off the way it did. It's an inferior good, except for price per dose.
I think the rise of synthetic meth is a decent comparison, where it's had a similar (though not to the same level) fall in price per dose, but hasn't had the same curve of usage.
posted by klangklangston at 11:30 PM on August 13
It’s an inferior good (hence the plausibility of the notion that a legal supply of better opioids would make a dent in demand) but with massive advantages for a black market producer/distributor. A fully synthetic product that requires moving a fraction of the weight, that stands up to cutting so well that it’s essentially mandatory, offers far more pluses than minuses. The big minus is accidentally killing consumers, and at least you have a base of consumers that knows that danger comes hand in hand with getting a lot of bang for their buck. Manufacture depends on more niche precursors than heroin, but this is made up for currently by having a whole family of substitute precursors for substitute products.
I think you’re right that the adoption curve would have been less dramatic, but it was bound to happen in the long run. What that curve would look like depends, I suppose, on the different populations of opioid users across the country and the factors that have driven usage beyond availability.
posted by atoxyl at 10:13 AM on August 14
I think you’re right that the adoption curve would have been less dramatic, but it was bound to happen in the long run. What that curve would look like depends, I suppose, on the different populations of opioid users across the country and the factors that have driven usage beyond availability.
posted by atoxyl at 10:13 AM on August 14
I think you’re right that the adoption curve would have been less dramatic, but it was bound to happen in the long run.
Availability of superior opioids (from the consumer standpoint) being high and then sharply decreasing was probably the worst-case scenario here compared to availability being lower in the first place or remaining high. I’m not sure we disagree on this point, you’re just arguing that the former case would have been possible and preferable.
posted by atoxyl at 10:19 AM on August 14 [1 favorite]
Availability of superior opioids (from the consumer standpoint) being high and then sharply decreasing was probably the worst-case scenario here compared to availability being lower in the first place or remaining high. I’m not sure we disagree on this point, you’re just arguing that the former case would have been possible and preferable.
posted by atoxyl at 10:19 AM on August 14 [1 favorite]
I will admit I have some personal experience (timed right before fentanyl hit big, too) that probably biases me in favor of the importance of making opioid use less dangerous over minimizing the number of people who ever use opioids.
posted by atoxyl at 10:35 AM on August 14
posted by atoxyl at 10:35 AM on August 14
I’m not sure we disagree on this point, you’re just arguing that the former case would have been possible and preferable.
Pretty much. Better regulation on Purdue et al. would have decreased the market penetration and created less demand for first heroin, then fentanyl; then the regulation that shut down Purdue et al. was an over-reaction that drove a lot of people to first heroin, then fentanyl. And we still don't have a great US model for how to deal with the opioid crises — the Oregon attempt to decriminalize seemed to think that, similar to some comments upthread, that decriminalization was the crucial point, not all the harm reduction infrastructure and funding that has to exist in order for decriminalization to be a viable strategy, which is why I tend to think of decriminalization advocates as more shallow than deep, because funding all of the other harm reduction can come without decriminalization, but decriminalization won't work without the harm reduction infrastructure.
I will admit I have some personal experience (timed right before fentanyl hit big, too) that probably biases me in favor of the importance of making opioid use less dangerous over minimizing the number of people who ever use opioids.
I had a pretty awful bicycle crash that happened in the midst of shifting attitudes on opioids, and I'm lucky that I got pretty appropriate prescriptions even as opioids themselves are not a fun drug for me, and apparently I have a massive tolerance that meant I was pretty constantly taking the maximum safe dose just to get constant pain down to a manageable level for months. The way we approach pain management in this country is profoundly stupid — I'm glad both that I started weaning myself off of them early and that I kept a bottle of percocets that lasted me a decade for times when I broke a toe or slashed open a finger and 800mg of ibuprofen did nothing. (Don't tell the cops, but I've also had a nugget of coke given to me by a former MeFite for about 15 years now, and I use a couple of grains of it each time I've gotten a really rough sore throat, since nobody will prescribe codeine cough syrup anymore. It's magic, and the way I can tell I don't have a coke problem is I've had several grams of coke in the medicine cabinet for 15 years.)
Amazingly, pain management is an area where the US is largely better than Europe and Asia — getting ibuprofen in Italy felt like I was buying a gun, and people still get stopped with Everything Bagel seasoning going into Korea because of the poppyseeds.
posted by klangklangston at 7:33 PM on August 14 [3 favorites]
Pretty much. Better regulation on Purdue et al. would have decreased the market penetration and created less demand for first heroin, then fentanyl; then the regulation that shut down Purdue et al. was an over-reaction that drove a lot of people to first heroin, then fentanyl. And we still don't have a great US model for how to deal with the opioid crises — the Oregon attempt to decriminalize seemed to think that, similar to some comments upthread, that decriminalization was the crucial point, not all the harm reduction infrastructure and funding that has to exist in order for decriminalization to be a viable strategy, which is why I tend to think of decriminalization advocates as more shallow than deep, because funding all of the other harm reduction can come without decriminalization, but decriminalization won't work without the harm reduction infrastructure.
I will admit I have some personal experience (timed right before fentanyl hit big, too) that probably biases me in favor of the importance of making opioid use less dangerous over minimizing the number of people who ever use opioids.
I had a pretty awful bicycle crash that happened in the midst of shifting attitudes on opioids, and I'm lucky that I got pretty appropriate prescriptions even as opioids themselves are not a fun drug for me, and apparently I have a massive tolerance that meant I was pretty constantly taking the maximum safe dose just to get constant pain down to a manageable level for months. The way we approach pain management in this country is profoundly stupid — I'm glad both that I started weaning myself off of them early and that I kept a bottle of percocets that lasted me a decade for times when I broke a toe or slashed open a finger and 800mg of ibuprofen did nothing. (Don't tell the cops, but I've also had a nugget of coke given to me by a former MeFite for about 15 years now, and I use a couple of grains of it each time I've gotten a really rough sore throat, since nobody will prescribe codeine cough syrup anymore. It's magic, and the way I can tell I don't have a coke problem is I've had several grams of coke in the medicine cabinet for 15 years.)
Amazingly, pain management is an area where the US is largely better than Europe and Asia — getting ibuprofen in Italy felt like I was buying a gun, and people still get stopped with Everything Bagel seasoning going into Korea because of the poppyseeds.
posted by klangklangston at 7:33 PM on August 14 [3 favorites]
« Older cheerful story of a local business | A new approach to the Voynich Manuscript Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
wascally wabbit [smithsonian]
that's all folks
posted by HearHere at 9:10 AM on August 11 [2 favorites]