This is generally my impression. A lot of addiction, too, which is why I favor making addiction as inexpensive and easy as possible.
At least localizes the problem.
I don't know how to save everyone. It's not in nature's plan at least.
I hope things work out for your sister.
It has been said many times we are losing the war on drugs.
If you legalise supply you control not only the supply but the purity and strength, that way you know what you are getting.
10mg of paracetamol from a pharmacy should be just that for example but in this case applied to I guess Heroin and cocaine among others.
Then you work on reducing the dependency, a t the same time as that try and deal with the mental health or other issues that have caused the addiction
Of course this also means that these substances can be tax, so lets tax them and put 100 percent of that in to providing free detox, mental health and other support.
As with other problems, it is fixable if we are prepared to be tough enough to have these hard discussions and make hard decisions as to how to solve the issues involved.
I oppose legalization and favor decriminalization.
Our goal is not to make drug use safe, only to make it less destructive.
In my view, the markets do a good job of regulating quality.
I also have very little faith in detox programs.
It's all up to the user, and most who quit do it on their own.
This isn't to say other black markets should be given legal status, but in the case of individuals partaking in activities that only put themselves at risk I see no reason for disallowing it.
Alcohol is one of the hardest drugs on the body, and we have nearly 100k deaths a year from excessive use. Drunk driving adds to that number victims of bad decisions while intoxicated.
@thatguyoverthere @zleap @thor
I tend to agree with legal but unregulated/untaxed markets.
Localize the damage.
@thatguyoverthere @zleap @thor
If our legal system was awake, it would permit fraud suits for anything other than listed ingredients.
For example, honey. Bad sellers replace much of the liquid with corn syrup.
To my mind, that's fraud if the container says HONEY.
But regulations shield this.
@amerika @thatguyoverthere @thor
In the UK that would probably breach the trade descriptions act.
Food laws have been updated here so that all ingredients have to be listed even on shop made sandwiches, this is to help people with allergies avoid items that have known allergens in.
It helps everyone else too, but hopefully will avoid people dying from eating products containing something they are allergic to.
@zleap @thatguyoverthere @thor
It's one of the reasons why UK tobacco is so good: the laws historically favored natural ingredients, not weird flavorings.
@amerika @thatguyoverthere @thor
Indeed, we have some pretty tough regulations here.
@amerika @thatguyoverthere @thor
Indeed, well here we have activity pub, which is a standard, that works or seems to work really well. where there are problems we get together, discuss and enhence.
i guess in someweays the GPL is a standard
The main problem is that we don't always have the financial resources to take on big violators.
@zleap @thatguyoverthere @thor
Regulatory states are expensive. There could be some cost-shifting there.
I dunno how to write a law to protect online privacy. This is why I like common law: it reacts to real harms.
If Facebook leaks someone's data, I say let them sue. Clarify that privacy is a natural right, in other words.
Facebook fears that, because they could have as many lawsuits as users, and after the first one wins, they all will. RIP Facebook.
@amerika @thatguyoverthere @thor
Well with the online safety bill, big tech have been given a chance to self regulate, which has clearly failed, if you look at the leaked reports of facebook putting profits before user safety.
Other examples of online abuse Kids posting doctored videos of teachers on tik tok with their teachers labelled paedophiles.
They have failed hence the government here have decided to legislate.
The same goes for other industries here such as energy, they are given a chance to have a voluntary code, self regulate and just don't. So government has to act.
.
Hence is why it is important to engage with law makers via the forums on social.activitypub.rocks or rather the people there do the talking to lawmakers once people have ideas to present to them.
@zleap @thatguyoverthere @thor
I take a different approach: it is not Facebook's job to regulate this stuff at all.
Kids posting doctored videos? Take it up with the kids.
As far as the energy industry, they love regulation. Make of that what you will.
@amerika @thatguyoverthere @thor
I 100 % agree with taking it up with the kids, we already have several laws that would be breached by what they have done; e.g slander, libel, harassment, bullying, malicuous communications to probably name a few.
So take them to court and sue them or hold the parents responsible and sue them. They will soon regret it when mum / dad have to sell up and say we are now homeless due to your stupid behaviour.
The do gooders would claim though that the kids are not aware of the consequences, this is BS they know EXACTLY what they are doung. A few have just been suspended from school. They are pretty much untouchable in some cases.
Problem is it is easier to blame the platform - Facebook, TikTOk etc than it is to blame the users who post.
Online harms bill is also designed to remove the anonymity and force some sort of online ID system
I have no problem linking my posts to me via ID, but I also appreciate others may post anonymously as they want to discuss sensitive topics, or they may be an activist in a more dangerous country.
In some countries it is illegal to be gay, so having this ID system may put people in danger, if you are linked to certain groups etc. then visit a country where being gay is illegal.
@zleap @thatguyoverthere @thor
I say HELL NO to IDing users.
We know how this one ends: the cops at your door for something you posted on Twitter seven years ago.
The internet was a brief truth bubble because it was mostly anonymous.
@amerika @thatguyoverthere @thor
This is the problem, on Mainstream social media we have people abusing others anonymously, so as a result these laws are now being brought in. So an exanple is people sending indecent images to women, for example but that is not just a few p eople these women are getting bombarded with images, sexual comments etc etc.
Of course that is a manifestation of society (so back to education)
So the majority suffer due to the minority.
At least here on fedi we can block users, mute users or whole instances if that instance fails to deal with something. We have more control in some ways.
On fed we can verify our accounts, which should be optional. but i think in some cases there are benefits esp if you are a official account for example or an instance admin. .
@amerika @thatguyoverthere @thor
Problem with RIP Facebook is where do all the users go to?
As I have said before you attract the good and bad users.
@zleap @thatguyoverthere @thor
Someone invents something new.
We're seeing it now, just in slow motion.
I just think that while it's not the government's responsibility to regulate my choices, I should be able to participate in the free market and buy things and have them turn out to be what I think I am buying. Period. If I buy things that can harm me, but I know what they are, that's on me. The honey example is perfect. I think anyone selling corn syrup as honey should be punished in some fashion.
@thatguyoverthere @zleap @thor
I agree. I'd also like people to be able to sue for another entity, like rivers and lakes, instead of needing "standing" and a direct, personal, financial injury.
@amerika @thatguyoverthere @thor
Yeal that is doable if a company pollutes a river, that then has a direct impact on say your local business.
So environmental law should fine them and pay you compensation.
@zleap @thatguyoverthere @thor
In my view, no: you should be able to sue them for wrecking a river even if it cost you nothing, because you're out a river.
That way, there's a private incentive to sue, which works better in my view than government bureaucracies.
@amerika @thatguyoverthere @thor
Ah i get you there so you basically represent the river in court.
@zleap @thatguyoverthere @thor
Exactly. Company pollutes river, local guy notices his river has been ruined, he sues the company.
@amerika @thatguyoverthere @thor
Or gets together with other locals and issues a class action.
@thatguyoverthere @thor @amerika
We have laws in the uk that cover things like sales of good act, goods / services must be as advertised, fit for purpose, products must be safe etc.
@zleap @thatguyoverthere @thor
In my view of laws, the more general the better.
This is why I like fraud.
"It says here 'HONEY' but this isn't 100% honey, and the stuff in it is cheaper than honey, so I've been defrauded and want my money."
"Oh and the police outside would like a word with you because fraud is a felony."
Much harsher than regulations.
Regulations for example say that honey cannot be more than 1% bug legs.
That means all honey is exactly 1% bug legs ;)
@zleap @thatguyoverthere @thor
It's everywhere now, part of the modern makeup.
I think it's wrong.
The tobacco law pre-dates regulations, incidentally. It was a Royal act, and I'm not sure what those are called in current law.
Regulations make it easy to circumnavigate them. I prefer having standards, and simply destroying any business that violates them.
Business understands that kind of risk.