4 ms·

This use of the term "redundant" is either ignorant or irresponsible. It implies that the author either doesn't understand the meaning of the word redundant or

This use of the term "redundant" is either ignorant or irresponsible. It implies that the author either doesn't understand the meaning of the word redundant or doesn't understand the public health implications of substance abuse. By definition, redundant describes something that is not necessary, that can be removed without loss. That is definitively not the case in fighting substances abuse. We need to worry about the abuse of drugs in the same way we need to worry about the abuse of alcohol and tobacco. Would someone call "redundant" the fight against teenage alcoholism? Would someone say that we should stop paying attention the epidemics of obesity? Worrying about these issues is not redundant and worrying about drugs also isn't so. There are things society must forbid (e.g. murder), there are things that it must discourage (e.g. driving without safety belts) and others that it shouldn't bother. I can accept that we move dangerous drugs use from the first to the second category. It is irresponsible to move it to the 3rd. The proper term should be ineffective, not redundant.

Nursie 13y ago
>> By definition, redundant describes something that is not necessary, that can be removed without loss. It's possible the author thinks (as I do) that it could be removed without loss, and in fact could gain us a lot because it is counterproductive and causes more harm than it prevents.
betterunix 13y ago
"We need to worry about the abuse of drugs in the same way we need to worry about the abuse of alcohol and tobacco" The war on drugs is not even remotely similar to the regulation of alcohol and tobacco. Soldiers do not invade your house because you are suspected of growing tobacco. What is needed is for the war on drugs to end, for the DEA to be disbanded, and for a system that regulates quality to be introduced. If an adult wants to buy recreational drugs, nothing should prevent them from doing so. Mixing public health and paramilitary police is far more dangerous than any drugs people might consume (my Godwin senses are tingling...).
- jksmith 13y ago
  DEA is a jobs program, just like the TSA. You will never, ever convince any politicians to do anything about this because they're part of the program themselves. Just pay your taxes, live with it, and stay out of the way.
  - trentmb 13y ago
    What's stopping the DEA from becoming a regulatory organization?
    - dfc 13y ago
      The Food and Drug Administration.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
shabble 13y ago
I would have gone with 'moot'. But this approach is like solving teenage alcoholism by sewing their mouths closed until age 18 (21?), and only permitting specially authorised containers of nutrients to be attached to their nasal feeding tubes. The solution to these problems is to identify and handle the root causes of them, rather than criminalising what are probably the symptoms.
juandopazo 13y ago
> It implies that the author either doesn't understand the meaning of the word redundant Journalists don't usually write their own headlines in newspapers. That's usually the job of editors. The author used the word "obsolete" which makes more sense when understood as "it's changing the rules so radically and fast that the old way of fighting the war on drugs doesn't work any more".
norswap 13y ago
> Would someone call "redundant" the fight against teenage alcoholism? Would someone say that we should stop paying attention the epidemics of obesity? Yes, we should. I don't see any indication that program to fight about those things are helping. In fact, this whole forbid culture is part of the problem. If alcohol is a forbidden product, then using means abusing and that's exactly what happens in practice. Reasonable consumption loses ground to abusive consumption because of the cultural label attached to alcohol.
T-hawk 13y ago
The wording of "made redundant" here is a Britishism. For a UK employer to fire an underperforming or unnecessary employee, first there is a process and period of time where the employee is notified his position is being made redundant.[1] The war on drugs is being addressed in that sense here, that it is underperforming because it can't keep up with rapid production advancements, so it should be dismissed like an underachieving employee. [1] https://www.gov.uk/redundant-your-rights/overview https://www.gov.uk/redundant-your-rights/overview
moocowduckquack 13y ago
You just agreed with the headline though. You want to end the war on drugs and make it a public health concern. Unless you want to do that but still call it a war. Which would seem odd, but then again there is apparently already a war against obesity according to the press, which seems unfair on the face of it and just sounds like the army bullying fat kids. Perhaps that's what it is, I haven't checked. But anyway, the war on drugs is definitely a shooting war at this point, so perhaps we could say that we need a cold war on drugs. Although I think we recently had one of those and everybody nearly got nuked from what I hear, so perhaps that is a bad idea as well.

Nursie 13y ago

>> By definition, redundant describes something that is not necessary, that can be removed without loss. It's possible the author thinks (as I do) that it could be removed without loss, and in fact could gain us a lot because it is counterproductive and causes more harm than it prevents.

betterunix 13y ago

"We need to worry about the abuse of drugs in the same way we need to worry about the abuse of alcohol and tobacco" The war on drugs is not even remotely similar to the regulation of alcohol and tobacco. Soldiers do not invade your house because you are suspected of growing tobacco. What is needed is for the war on drugs to end, for the DEA to be disbanded, and for a system that regulates quality to be introduced. If an adult wants to buy recreational drugs, nothing should prevent them from doing so. Mixing public health and paramilitary police is far more dangerous than any drugs people might consume (my Godwin senses are tingling...).

jksmith 13y ago
DEA is a jobs program, just like the TSA. You will never, ever convince any politicians to do anything about this because they're part of the program themselves. Just pay your taxes, live with it, and stay out of the way.
- trentmb 13y ago
  What's stopping the DEA from becoming a regulatory organization?
  - dfc 13y ago
    The Food and Drug Administration.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

shabble 13y ago

I would have gone with 'moot'. But this approach is like solving teenage alcoholism by sewing their mouths closed until age 18 (21?), and only permitting specially authorised containers of nutrients to be attached to their nasal feeding tubes. The solution to these problems is to identify and handle the root causes of them, rather than criminalising what are probably the symptoms.

juandopazo 13y ago

> It implies that the author either doesn't understand the meaning of the word redundant Journalists don't usually write their own headlines in newspapers. That's usually the job of editors. The author used the word "obsolete" which makes more sense when understood as "it's changing the rules so radically and fast that the old way of fighting the war on drugs doesn't work any more".

norswap 13y ago

> Would someone call "redundant" the fight against teenage alcoholism? Would someone say that we should stop paying attention the epidemics of obesity? Yes, we should. I don't see any indication that program to fight about those things are helping. In fact, this whole forbid culture is part of the problem. If alcohol is a forbidden product, then using means abusing and that's exactly what happens in practice. Reasonable consumption loses ground to abusive consumption because of the cultural label attached to alcohol.

T-hawk 13y ago

The wording of "made redundant" here is a Britishism. For a UK employer to fire an underperforming or unnecessary employee, first there is a process and period of time where the employee is notified his position is being made redundant.[1] The war on drugs is being addressed in that sense here, that it is underperforming because it can't keep up with rapid production advancements, so it should be dismissed like an underachieving employee. [1] https://www.gov.uk/redundant-your-rights/overview https://www.gov.uk/redundant-your-rights/overview

moocowduckquack 13y ago

You just agreed with the headline though. You want to end the war on drugs and make it a public health concern. Unless you want to do that but still call it a war. Which would seem odd, but then again there is apparently already a war against obesity according to the press, which seems unfair on the face of it and just sounds like the army bullying fat kids. Perhaps that's what it is, I haven't checked. But anyway, the war on drugs is definitely a shooting war at this point, so perhaps we could say that we need a cold war on drugs. Although I think we recently had one of those and everybody nearly got nuked from what I hear, so perhaps that is a bad idea as well.