• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

2025 U.S. - Venezuela conflict

Normal drug traffickers? I consider the loser on the corner pushing dime bags as a normal drug trafficker. Hauling a ton of drugs in a five engined off shore speed boat, not so much.
…or worse yet, 400 tons of drugs…

Oh, wait…
 
As I mentioned once before, if they had some solid intelligence on these boats, I'm certain they would have released just a tiny bit of it to either the public, or even more in closed hearings, to at least justify their action or even satisfied naysayers. The fact that they are giving the middle finger to everybody that asks is telling.
You could wish. "We can't risk disclosing methods..." is offered by everyone as the excuse for some kind of intelligence fuckery that suits their political aesthetis.
 
No, it is a real problem that is killing a lot of people and numerous governments have tried various ways to address it. But that isn't to say that Trump is taking advantage of it
Plus ca change. Pirates, slave trade, terrorists, drug trade. All problems to which military force can be applied without the existence of a state of war.
 
Plus ca change. Pirates, slave trade, terrorists, drug trade. All problems to which military force can be applied without the existence of a state of war.
It ill be interesting to see in 3-6months if Trumps approach results in a spike of prices at the street level for whatever drugs are being sent to the ocean depths.
A prolonged spike in prices, if no cheap alternatives are found, should lead to a corresponding spike in day to day petty crime as addicts are forced to adjust to higher prices.

Everything has a knock on effect.
 
No, it is a real problem that is killing a lot of people and numerous governments have tried various ways to address it. But that isn't to say that Trump is taking advantage of it
I agree with that BUT I think (no proof) that the drug bosses toss the cops a few bones - even if it costs the drug barons a few million. Then the government can say "WE ARE DOING SOMETHING!" Then the cycle starts again.
 
It ill be interesting to see in 3-6months if Trumps approach results in a spike of prices at the street level for whatever drugs are being sent to the ocean depths.
A prolonged spike in prices, if no cheap alternatives are found, should lead to a corresponding spike in day to day petty crime as addicts are forced to adjust to higher prices.

Everything has a knock on effect.
I doubt it will have much impact. The administration will brag about the (guesstimated) amount of drugs destroyed. Administration critics will basically play their resistance-is-futile, bomber-will-aways-get-through, drugs-continue-to-flow counterpoint. They will both be right.

Addicts are a problem for cities, particularly big metro areas, most of which are "blue", to deal with. Forcing their hands would be a bonus effect from the administration's viewpoint.
 
The drug trade can be reduced by treatment of addicts thereby lowering the demand.
Full spectrum care is the answer. If we treat drug addiction as a medical condition, include detox, housing, community support, potentially education or skills enhancement, the negative aspects will be drastically reduced. It's also likely cheaper than policing, justice system use, and incarceration. Unfortunately, we're conditioned to think the opposite.
 
Full spectrum care is the answer. If we treat drug addiction as a medical condition, include detox, housing, community support, potentially education or skills enhancement, the negative aspects will be drastically reduced. It's also likely cheaper than policing, justice system use, and incarceration. Unfortunately, we're conditioned to think the opposite.
Now if you could just stop BC from handing out free opiates on the street..............
 
Full spectrum care is the answer. If we treat drug addiction as a medical condition, include detox, housing, community support, potentially education or skills enhancement, the negative aspects will be drastically reduced. It's also likely cheaper than policing, justice system use, and incarceration. Unfortunately, we're conditioned to think the opposite.
Meanwhile the folks who stayed clear of known poisons get to foot the bill for all this while still paying for their own "housing, education and skills advancment".
 
Meanwhile the folks who stayed clear of known poisons get to foot the bill for all this while still paying for their own "housing, education and skills advancment".
We’re paying the bills for them anyway- ambulance, hospital, police, jail, shelter… When I was on the road I had a crew of regulars on that exact cycle.
 
We’re paying the bills for them anyway- ambulance, hospital, police, jail, shelter… When I was on the road I had a crew of regulars on that exact cycle.
I agree,......but the 'smart and/or honest guy' isn't advancing in education/skills. And if all it took was money we'd still have Amy WInehouse singing, Matthew Perry acting, etc etc...

Treatment is a great word, I did my last 19 years of my career doing just that, but it's a fools game[and a cheap easy verbal fix] to say it's the answer.
 
No, it's not the answer, but it is part of the answer. Probably the part that would reap the highest rewards. The other part is prevention.
 
No, it's not the answer, but it is part of the answer. Probably the part that would reap the highest rewards. The other part is prevention.
And I lean to prevention being the highest rewards. I have seen a few who broke the habit, but they were still broken.....
 
We’re paying the bills for them anyway- ambulance, hospital, police, jail, shelter….

The 9-1-1 Call Originators just wanted them moved....

Maybe after they were delivered to a facility they went on a program.
 
The fact that other presidents have done somewhat similar acts doesn't make it better, more moral or more legal. 'Because Johnny did it' usually doesn't work outside of the playground.

That repeated congresses have either failed to reign in, or legislatively deferred certain authorities to, the Executive is on them. I'm sure it seemed like a good idea at the time.

As I mentioned once before, if they had some solid intelligence on these boats, I'm certain they would have released just a tiny bit of it to either the public, or even more in closed hearings, to at least justify their action or even satisfied naysayers. The fact that they are giving the middle finger to everybody that asks is telling.
When they first started this, they stated their intelligence included launch spots, personnel on board and what they were carrying. They aren’t beholden to give out any intelligence whatsoever on what they are doing. If for no other reason than to protect their assets.

Middle finger? Who is everybody? Are you talking about foreigners that feel so invested that they think they're entitled to lecture/ get answers, from someone elses government on their foreign affairs policy/ protection of the homeland?

I'm sure even you would agree that's a little presumptuous and sanctimonious.
 
Full spectrum care is the answer. If we treat drug addiction as a medical condition, include detox, housing, community support, potentially education or skills enhancement, the negative aspects will be drastically reduced. It's also likely cheaper than policing, justice system use, and incarceration. Unfortunately, we're conditioned to think the opposite.
without eliminating the incarceration scenarios, I agree that treating it as a medical condition (the first time) is appropriate. But a repeat offender who is selling and not just a user goes to jail. When he is there his market is limited or for you who insist on equality When she is there her market is limited.
 
without eliminating the incarceration scenarios, I agree that treating it as a medical condition (the first time) is appropriate. But a repeat offender who is selling and not just a user goes to jail. When he is there his market is limited or for you who insist on equality When she is there her market is limited.
I don’t think anyone reasonably objects to jailing traffickers (though some do unreasonably). I would differentiate those trafficking purely for profit from those dealing just enough to support their own addiction. They still must be accountable for their actions, but there’s also still room for a public health approach because the underlying source problem is still their addiction issues.
 
Addicts are a problem for cities, particularly big metro areas, most of which are "blue", to deal with. Forcing their hands would be a bonus effect from the administration's viewpoint.

It's more a multicoloured issue.

Drug overdoses are the leading cause of injury or death in the United States, resulting in approximately 52,000 deaths in 2015. In rural areas, rates of drug overdose deaths are rising and have surpassed rates in urban areas.

Rural areas have a lower percentage of people reporting illicit drug use than urban areas. However, the effects of illicit drug use are higher in rural areas. Among people who had used illicit drugs in the past year, the percentage of people with drug use disorders is similar for rural and urban areas.

Most rural overdose deaths occurred in homes. At home, rescue efforts may fall to relatives who have limited knowledge of or access to naloxone and overdose follow-up care.
 
Back
Top