3 ms·

It's definitely not just kids. Social media is a lot like meth, we should at a bare minimum stop giving it to kids as soon as possible. And then come to realise

It's definitely not just kids. Social media is a lot like meth, we should at a bare minimum stop giving it to kids as soon as possible. And then come to realise it's bad for everyone and should be wound back.

Paracompact 4mo ago
Their argument would be, "If meth is a negative externality, we should just tax it instead of banning it in stores for kids to buy." Kids may die, but I'm sure with all that extra state revenue we'll get a nice park or museum or kickback to Tesla or something.
- kelseyfrog 4mo ago
  [flagged]
  - tancop 4mo ago
    looking for me?
    - kelseyfrog 4mo ago
      Are you willing to expound on the meth tax idea? Just curious.
- AnthonyMouse 4mo ago
  > Kids may die, but I'm sure with all that extra state revenue we'll get a nice park or museum or kickback to Tesla or something. The argument, which has some pretty decent evidence behind it, is that prohibition is the thing that kills people. Because it has to be smuggled, dealers switch from "normal" hard drugs to overdose triggers like fentanyl with 1000x the potency because then they only have to smuggle 0.1% as much of it, which in turn kills people because street dealers cut it improperly and users get wildly different effective doses or drugs cut with dangerous contaminants. Notice that meth literally is legal in the US. Essentially anyone can get amphetamines by going to a doctor and telling them you have the symptoms it gets prescribed to treat. It's even prescribed to kids. The primary barrier is having health insurance and the ability to take off work during the day every month to get a refill. Which is why the people dying of overdose are the people priced out of that system, who wouldn't be if they could buy it at Walmart, but because they can't they resort to the entirely unregulated black market and die of a fentanyl overdose.
AnthonyMouse 4mo ago
But then what's the point of forcing IDs on everyone instead of cutting to the chase?

Paracompact 4mo ago

Their argument would be, "If meth is a negative externality, we should just tax it instead of banning it in stores for kids to buy." Kids may die, but I'm sure with all that extra state revenue we'll get a nice park or museum or kickback to Tesla or something.

kelseyfrog 4mo ago
[flagged]
- tancop 4mo ago
  looking for me?
  - kelseyfrog 4mo ago
    Are you willing to expound on the meth tax idea? Just curious.
AnthonyMouse 4mo ago
> Kids may die, but I'm sure with all that extra state revenue we'll get a nice park or museum or kickback to Tesla or something. The argument, which has some pretty decent evidence behind it, is that prohibition is the thing that kills people. Because it has to be smuggled, dealers switch from "normal" hard drugs to overdose triggers like fentanyl with 1000x the potency because then they only have to smuggle 0.1% as much of it, which in turn kills people because street dealers cut it improperly and users get wildly different effective doses or drugs cut with dangerous contaminants. Notice that meth literally is legal in the US. Essentially anyone can get amphetamines by going to a doctor and telling them you have the symptoms it gets prescribed to treat. It's even prescribed to kids. The primary barrier is having health insurance and the ability to take off work during the day every month to get a refill. Which is why the people dying of overdose are the people priced out of that system, who wouldn't be if they could buy it at Walmart, but because they can't they resort to the entirely unregulated black market and die of a fentanyl overdose.

AnthonyMouse 4mo ago

But then what's the point of forcing IDs on everyone instead of cutting to the chase?