| ▲ | datsci_est_2015 6 hours ago |
| This admin is focused on the message of stopping the inflow of drugs to the US. There are probably some true believers, and there are probably some reactionary accelerationists. There’s also significant evidence of amateurism, misinformation, and incompetence. All of that coming together, I see this action coming out of meeting where - one party was convinced that this would solve the fentanyl epidemic
- one party was hoping this would escalate military action in Mexico
- one party was convinced that America had lost its masculine bravado and taking swift and unprecedented action like this would make their wife respect them again
- one party was busy making “bets” on Kalshi
|
|
| ▲ | morpheuskafka 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| > one party was busy making “bets” on Kalshi This would arguably be much more severe -- and quite likely already happening -- than the whole "congress trading stocks" thing because most of those (besides the sports ones) tie very directly to government actions in a way that the economy or a large company in generally doesn't as predictably. |
| |
| ▲ | mikeyouse 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | It's definitely already happening and should lead to a congressional inquiry if we had a functioning congress: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2gn93292do | |
| ▲ | usefulcat an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Yes and no. AIUI there's generally a lot less liquidity available in prediction markets, which limits the profitability. Even if you have perfect clairvoyance, you still need someone to take the other side of the bet. | |
| ▲ | nemomarx 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Isn't the whole idea of prediction markets to let insiders bet on things so that you'll get insider info leaked? | | |
| ▲ | datsci_est_2015 an hour ago | parent [-] | | Maybe this is fine until it incentivizes easily-achieved but adverse actions that would greatly harm the public. For a silly example, I would imagine the streaker from this year’s Super Bowl is either (a) a complete idiot, or (b) put a significant amount of money on a “prediction market” of there being a streaker at the Super Bowl - more than enough to cover his ticket, legal, and medical costs. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | RiverCrochet 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ut3I6gFmlls |
|
| ▲ | matthews3 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > bets Investments on Kalshi! |
|
| ▲ | delaminator 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > reactionary they want to overthrow the Jacobites > accelerationists how's that going to work ? |
| |
| ▲ | pjc50 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Reactionary accelerationists want a local war of some sort so they can grab war powers and then roll back all the US's post-WW2 social progress (and most of the New Deal too). | | |
| ▲ | delaminator 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | My understanding is accelerationists or liberals to go full hog so that they can go "see". |
|
|
|
| ▲ | dylan604 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| --one party was hoping we'd stop talking about Epstein |
|
| ▲ | sowbug 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| If the US wanted to end the fentanyl and xylazine and nitazene epidemic, it would legalize the controlled manufacture, sale, and usage of the drugs being adulterated. This won't happen, because the 50-year-old War on Drugs is a load-bearing pillar of the US government. |
| |
| ▲ | projektfu 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Xylazine and fentanyl are already legally distributed in the US. I believe Xylazine is still unscheduled. https://www.dechra-us.com/our-products/us/equine/horse/presc... | | |
| ▲ | sowbug 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Those are the adulterants, not the drugs being adulterated such as heroin, meth, and MDMA. For the most part, no customer wants fentanyl. The dealers like it because it's a cheap booster for cutting the drugs that their customers actually do want to buy. It just has this unfortunate side effect of making small overdoses lethal. That's why "ending the fentanyl crisis" is a curious goal. We had a perfectly good War on Drugs going on, but fentanyl is making the illicit drug industry too dangerous. You'd think that if we wanted to stop drugs, and we knew how to do that, we'd stop drugs. Instead we're stopping fentanyl, so we can get back to the regularly scheduled version of the War on Drugs that was always intended to last forever. | |
| ▲ | 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
| |
| ▲ | influx 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I live in Seattle, decriminalizing drugs didn't turn out that way here. | | |
| ▲ | sowbug 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | "controlled" is key. Seattle decriminalized drug use. That's a tiny part of a larger solution rooted in harm reduction. | | |
| ▲ | mikkupikku 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Singapore kills drug dealers. That works much better. | | |
| ▲ | RiverCrochet 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Idk, if the number of people executed increases over time, maybe it doesn't. https://www.afr.com/world/asia/singapore-executions-touch-22... This article cites Singapore saying the existing laws mostly get low-level users and not kingpins because kingpins operate outside of the country. https://www.vice.com/en/article/singapore-drug-executions/ Decriminalization of drug use doesn't have to mean decriminalization of anything else. Thieves and murderers should be prosecuted regardless of any state induced by the voluntary ingestion chemicals. | | |
| ▲ | mikkupikku an hour ago | parent [-] | | Decriminalization without legalization is something I can't support. If it's not illegal for me to have and use a drug, them why should I be forced to buy it from criminals? Either legalize it, or go whole hog on criminalizing it. Execute the dealers and put users into mandatory rehab, or let people buy it in shops. Any of these half measures are intolerable, they exist to make sure the situation is in a constant state of tension, to nobody's benefit but the governments. Ideally we would pick one or the other on a drug by drug basis. Executing people for selling weed isn't something I actually want, but neither do I want them simply imprisoned or fined either. But with shit like fent? Trying to find a single policy to fit both drugs is inane. |
| |
| ▲ | datsci_est_2015 an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | I can’t tell if this is sarcastic or not. Anyway: Capital punishment is an elegant solution. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | drstewart 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | It's like if Canada wanted to end gun smuggling and school shootings, it would legalize the controlled manufacture, sale, and usage of the guns being banned. But they won't. |
|
