there are many people who believe that punishment creates fear and fear creates compliance and compliance solves problems. So if someone in America believes this, then they probably think this will punish people for trafficking drugs (or disobeying US demands) and instill fear in them with regards to trafficking and will get them to stop trafficking drugs and therefore Americans will no longer be addicted to drugs.
The problem is that fear-based problem solving often just becomes problem avoidance. People become afraid to say there's a problem so it _looks_ as if the problem is solved, but the problem just becomes more buried and actually gets worse.
So, it might help Americans _think_ that the drug problem is solved, but not actually help us solve the drug problem. And I suppose when we push punishment, we're mostly pushing problem avoidance, and so it helps people Americans avoid problems more, so I guess it'd be successful in that.
Especially for the supposed capturing of a foreign leader. But maybe we did this with Gaddafi and Hussein, not sure what Congressional approval there was for those either. Apparently H.W. Bush also ordered the capture of Noriega for drug trafficking charges.
I'm tired of the US thinking that military forceful action is the way to resolve conflicts, especially the way to win the "war on drugs." We should be much more effective at reducing drug addiction if we realized that it's not so much about the drugs, it's about our growing culture of conflict and emotional avoidance. When a population lets itself feel sadness, feel pain, and reinterpret conflicts from the assumed "they don't care about me" to "they care more about me than I may ever realize," then I am willing to bet the drug industry will shrink significantly.
Punishing those who sell drugs often just perpetuates this idea that punishment resolves conflict, which I'm very willing to bet actually _increases_ our tendency to be addicted to drugs.
Every culture consumes drugs. There was a massive heroine consumption problem before WWI in the US, which was largely mitigated by making it illegal to sell it over-the-counter.
It's far easier to reduce consumption by cutting the supply entering your country, than solving the self-actualization issues (is it even one?) of your population.
People selling drugs such as fentanyl or cocaine have various techniques to hook consumers and keep them addicted regardless of their mental state. Selling hard drugs is criminalized for a good reason.
> It's far easier to reduce consumption by cutting the supply entering your country
So easy. Exactly why Sweden have had a "zero tolerance" policy against drugs, particularly Cannabis, yet usage keeps growing no matter how much resources they keep throwing at stricter border controls and trying to reduce both supply and demand by arresting everyone with even traces of Cannabinoids in their blood. https://www.euda.europa.eu/publications/country-drug-reports...
> People selling drugs such as fentanyl or cocaine have various techniques to hook consumers and keep them addicted regardless of their mental state. Selling hard drugs is criminalized for a good reason.
You're making the argument for why these things should be sold in controlled circumstances, rather than by private individuals who don't care about anything else but themselves, yet you end with "is criminalized for a good reason". Completely opposite, you're making the argument for why it needs to be legalized.
There is a difference between "0 tolerance", which affects mainly users, and "no entry", which prevents the product to reach your border.
In the case of Sweden, it is mainly a symptom of non-european immigration, using their criminal networks to import the product. Netherland is dominated by Moroccan mafia, France by the Algerian mafia, and so on. Remigrating them would likely solve a big part of the problem.
> controlled selling
Yes, that's already the case in most countries: I can get opioids such as morphine in the case of surgical operation. Many ADHD teens get derivatives of amphetamines. No one is against this.
In practice they tend to substitute A with B, and B is often times even more destructive (black market fentanyl rather than medical opioids, or just inhalants).
> People selling drugs such as fentanyl or cocaine have various techniques to hook consumers and keep them addicted regardless of their mental state. Selling hard drugs is criminalized for a good reason.
You don’t need any special tricks to keep someone buying fentanyl, the withdrawals are your sales pitch.
It really depends on where you live and the repression. In France, drug dealers paint large ads on buildings, advertising coke and weed, flood telegram channels and so on. If alcohol and cigarettes sellers do it on a massive scale, why wouldn't other drug dealers do the same (if the conditions allow it).
Drug users can be found at every stage of the society, either because of psychological/genetic issues making them more prone to consume, or because it's a cultural thing to do it (e.g alcohol), or there is peer pressure leading to consumption. Your living conditions have little to do about it, really.
> It's far easier to reduce consumption by cutting the supply entering your country, than solving the self-actualization issues (is it even one?) of your population.
Stuff like this is hard to believe in 2025 without really compelling evidence.
I gave you an example. You have similar examples in the XXth century, such as post-war amphetamin consumption in Europe.
The reverse is also true: the crack epidemic was caused by a dramatic increase in the supply of cocaine, which allowed even the poorest members of society to afford it. It's happening again now in Europe.
We can discuss about the criminalization of users and its effects on society, but in the case of the sellers I don't really see a case, especially when you know the conditions in which drugs are produced, involving often borderline slavery and wide corruption networks.
Perhaps, if our main goal is to simply reduce consumption of a specific drug. The problem I see is that problem avoidance finds other paths. Get rid of heroine? People will use marijuana. Marijuana gone? People use alcohol. Alcohol gone? People use video games.
I don't think the drugs are inherently the problem, as there's a paper I loved talking about different kinds of escapism: one where people escape to avoid problems and the second where people escape to solve problems.
So I still think the root is problem avoidance, which at an even more root level is emotional avoidance, especially of "bad" feelings, mostly sadness.
So I don't see it as self-actualization for some noble goal, but rather a practical how do I actually solve problems in my life goal.
tldr; banning certain drugs can be whack-a-mole, trying to solve symptoms but not the problem.
This is why it's more effective to focus on the most destructive drugs. Video games don't make you lose your teeth and become a burglar to buy the new CoD season pass (so far!).
If heroin were legal, in my current phase of life, I don't think I'd take it. I don't like even being drunk, and alcohol is very legal in most places I've lived.
But I dunno, I tend to say we should make it harder to get guns, so I want to reflect a little more on my double standard.
I'm curious, can you say more about what happens when you go through a conflict with someone who might be a friend? For example, when someone blames you or ignores your text or rejects you? How do you tend to feel? What do you tend to do in response?
To me it seems you not only want to learn how to code/write software but also to learn how to make dinner and be with family, how to game with friends, and how to recharge on weekends.
Learning it all is also about learning those other things, too.
This has helped me a lot, makes me realize I want to learn how to relax better, to sleep better, and to slow down better.
For a while I've thought so many of us are afraid to slow down because we might feel sad, as sadness is often one of the slowest emotions.
Yet this quote has me thinking that maybe we fear slowing down because of the consciousness overload. That we get so overwhelmed by our senses. Maybe even that can lead to the tears of being so alive.
That will vary. It can technically include any text up to a limit, but most likely it will be a URI, but it could be as simple as and account number. You would want to decode the QR (you can likely do that using your phone camera) and that would be the data to enter.
Ideally this tool would simply use the camera to capture the visual code (bar, QR, etc.) and enter it/replicate it.
I like the concept but feel kinda dumb: how do I add an action?
I'd love a help button or keyboard shortcut to show keyboard shortcuts.
Thanks!
edit: I figured out the action, with putting [] first. But that was an educated guess based on some other comment here that said actions were checkboxes and me knowing more about Markdown than maybe your average meeting notetaker.
I think most engineers/developers/scientists would welcome, or at least be fine with, being a member of a guild like writers and actors. Their parent poster is suggesting that a traditional US union is the way, which I personally don't agree with and don't think I am unique in that regard.
To be honest, I'm not sure I know the difference. I got invited to SAG-AFTRA after doing a TV commercial and it seemed pretty union-y to me. Not that it's inherently a bad thing, and maybe I'm wrong in that there are differences but not aware of them.
Could you say more about the differences you see between a traditional US union and a modern day guild?
What I meant is that something like SAG-AFTRA provides some benefits and sets minimum standards for a work environment but does not limit your ability to negotiate a higher rate for your work, does not require promotion (whatever that would mean in this context) based on seniority, etc.
In the US, doctors, lawyers, and to some extent professional engineers and other licensed professions operate under a somewhat similar model in that they restrict supply of that class of labor through some sort of accreditation, apply minimum standards for the profession, and otherwise stay out of your business for the most part.
I wonder if it's just creeping apathy, post-covid, current-AI boom. That we're just tired in life. There's a psych study, Dimensional Apathy Scale (DAS)[0] and one of the questions is basically "How much do I contact my friends?" I think it argues that the more apathy we feel, the less likely we are to reach out to others, and I imagine, the less likely we are to react or reply to comments (or even post).
I'm curious if the decline in reacting is matched by a decline in replying and posting in general.
Anyways, I worry that apathy is on the rise as we get overwhelmed with the rate of change and uncertainty in the 2020s and I'm working pretty hard to fight that apathy and bring more empathy, so if you're interested, please reach out to me the contact info in my bio.
The crypto train kinda ran out of steam, so all aboard the AI train.
That being said, I think AI has a lot more immediately useful cases than cryptocurrency. But it does feel a bit overhyped by people who stand to gain a tremendous amount of money.
I might get slammed/downvoted on HN for this, but really wondering how much of VC is filled with get-rich-quick cheerleading vs supporting products that will create strong and lasting growth.
I don't think you really need to wonder about how much is cheer leading. Effectively all of VC public statements will be cheer leading for companies they already invested in.
The more interesting one is the closed door conversations. Earlier this year, for example, it seemed there was a pattern of VCs heavily invested in AI asking the other software companies they invested in to figure out how to make AI useful for them and report back. I.e. "we invested heavily in hype, tell us how to make it real."
From my perspective, having worked in both industries and simply following my passions and opportunities, all I see is that the same two bandwagons who latched onto crypto either to grift or just egotistically talk shit have moved over to the latest technological breakthrough, meanwhile those of us silently working on interesting things are consantly rolling our eyes over comments from both sides of the peanut gallery.
The problem is that fear-based problem solving often just becomes problem avoidance. People become afraid to say there's a problem so it _looks_ as if the problem is solved, but the problem just becomes more buried and actually gets worse.
So, it might help Americans _think_ that the drug problem is solved, but not actually help us solve the drug problem. And I suppose when we push punishment, we're mostly pushing problem avoidance, and so it helps people Americans avoid problems more, so I guess it'd be successful in that.
reply