• Saik0@lemmy.saik0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    I don’t see health care trying to take responsibility for the hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Americans addicted to it today. There should be a medically overseeing program which helps them reduce their dependancy.

    Oh fair enough… I saw you mention 90s in the prior comment. Didn’t know that you shifted to today. For sure shit was overperscribed for a long long time.

    the supply doesn’t matter

    Eh… If it’s pennies, people will be able to afford doing it. You’re not going to be able to bring demand to nothing. So supply skyrocketing just kills those people faster in this case. I’m not sure I subscribe to this train of thought that supply would never matter. At least with consistent busts and such the price goes up which makes it harder for people to get their hands on. But yes, I’d like to see BOTH sides of this issue, both supply AND demand handled. I haven’t seen any presidency handle drugs in a way that I think is “correct”. But I’m no expert.

    But what are republicans going to do?

    I don’t know why people keep thinking that Republicans are going to do anything? I’m pretty sure all they wanted to do for years was build a fucking wall… that’s not doing a whole lot “against” Mexico. Do you have a source for this? This article… while it says it in the headline also doesn’t source “bomb mexico”. It states

    Vance and other Republican lawmakers, such as Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., have proposed labeling drug cartels as terrorist groups to allow U.S. forces to take aggressive action.

    Which doesn’t necessarily equate to treating Mexico like Iraq or Afghanistan. The one “cited” source for bombing mexico is to cnbc… which doesn’t state bomb… or anything even close to “Bomb” on it’s page at all.