Chinese Businesses Fueling the Fentanyl Epidemic Receive Millions in Crypto
elliptic.co
elliptic.co
Two wrongs do not make a right.
How is that different than karma?
After the invasion USA returned the "Boxer Protocol" money to create the best univ in China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Tsinghua_University
Not to mention US helped China to fight Japan, and build hospitals,etc. US never took an inch territory from China when it had the power to do that.
Russia on the other hand took a huge chunk territory from China and invaded and killed countless Chinese, but, China loves Russia while always hated US, I could never figure out why.
Also the Korean War happened. American bullets chopping up thousands of Chinese... it happened.
I didn't say who started it, nor is that really important, but there was the claim US had never done anything to China... it's not true.
and here is how the war started:
https://www.history.com/news/korean-war-causes-us-involvemen...
historically countries all had conflicts and wars, if that's where you're going for "USA did something to China", you can list what they exactly did. While you do that, please do not forget, Chinese killed each other over history and it's probably 1 million times more than whatever the western alliance did together. Not an excuse for any sides, history is just sad and bloody, but focusing on blaming other countries is barking the wrong tree, for the most part.
If you mean "China does not hate US", then check its textbooks and the government propaganda since 1950 until now.
If you mean "American bullets chopped off Chinese soldiers' heads", it goes both ways, are you saying US soldiers are supposed to remain quiet while being ambushed by Chinese soldiers? Or South Korea should just give up when invaded by North Korea? that's why I said who started the war is key. No wonder China is backing up Russia these days, invasion seems justified there.
If you mean "why USA are at Korea", then "Why China was at Korea many times including this time"?
Read history, all things happened for a reason, nobody is innocent.
There was also the Vietnam war where China also supplied arms and soldiers.
I’m not saying China are good, or USA are bad. I’m refuting your claim the USA never did anything to China.
The constant harassment of Chinas border within the taiwan straight is another example. The building of satellite states (south Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Phillipines) surrounding China is another example.
The formation of the quad is another example.
Are you reading the same history as me?
https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/douglas-macarthur-atomic-b...
> How is that different than karma?
Because the United States is not, nor has ever been, a part of the British Empire.
Karma[0]:
the force generated by a person's actions held
in Hinduism and Buddhism to perpetuate
transmigration and in its ethical consequences
to determine the nature of the person's next
existence
Drawing a distinction that the US is completely seperate from the British Empire is pretty dishonest. If you mean the "state" sure, by definition, but it's culture, origin, people, primary (though not official) language all came from the British empire.
True, there were US merchants which participated in supplying opium to China. Sometimes representing themselves, sometimes as proxies for British concerns. Also, an argument can be made that the East India Company operated under the influence, if not control, of the Crown. I do not believe the same argument could be made for US involvement, though I could be wrong.
However, unlike the British, the US in the Treaty of Wangxia agreed that any American involved in the opium trade would be prosecuted under Chinese law. Note that this does not absolve those involved in the opium trade prior or subsequent to this treaty for their actions.
> Drawing a distinction that the US is completely seperate from the British Empire is pretty dishonest.
No, it is not. It is a matter of historical fact[0]. Just because one nation can trace ancestry to another does not mean the newer one is answerable for the older one's actions. Are there commonalities between them? Of course.
But they are as distinct as a child is from their parents.
0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolutionary_War
The United States, shortly before calling itself the United Colonies, and shortly before that calling itself the Continental Association was formed as a group of colonies in British North America with common grievances against the government in London that it initially directed to the King within, and backed by an embargo against much of the rest of, the Empire. That attempt to improve the government of their part of the Empire to their satsifaction failing, they subsequently declared and eventually secured independence.
Which is to say that while it didn’t change its name to the United States until it had decided to exit the Empire, the organization that became known as the United States was formed as an association and agenda within the British Empire.
More to the point, the US, while not a belligerent in the Opium Wars, was a participant in the unequal treaties imposed through them (and played “good cop” while the British and French used force after the treaties relating to the 2nd Opium War were signed to secure their ratification.)
Hence my explicit use of United States, as it came to be after the colonies were no longer. Virtually all of the people who remained were previously British subjects, of course.
But designations before a nation exists are moot for those whom subsequently are a part of said nation.
Regarding the Opium Wars, I detailed in a peer comment my understanding of US involvement and responsibility. Even if one were to posit the US is equally responsible for supplying opium to China as the British Empire was, a position I disagree with, it would still fail to negate my original premise:
Two wrongs do not make a right.
> Two wrongs do not make a right.
Punishments without cause is called a wrong, punishment with cause is called justice... or karma in the casual sense.
The US is what happens when you cream off the religious nutcases from the British Empire, put the greediest in charge and found a new Empire based on conquest, genocide and chattel slavery. Plenty of justice waiting for America.
You know nothing about me and the fact that you pluralized your vitriol only reveals a pathetic attempt to hide an ad hominem attack.
How does that not imply "two wrongs"?
No, but three rights make a left.
This is not even to mention how crass the comparison between TikTok and the Opium Wars is.
I'm sorry, but the rules have changed, and policy needs to adapt.
The US war on drugs has not done well. But there are other countries which in fact have almost no drug use — Singapore, Taiwan, China, among others. There demonstrably are ways to wage a war on drugs in a democracy that work.
But yes, I think a death penalty for dealing fentanyl is appropriate.
I'd wage that the civil liability would be extremely high for all involved, even if it were legal.
De-regulation has very little to do with the drug users themselves or their harm to society, and everything to do with destroying the economy that those drug users support. The cartels are beyond regulation, but the Sacklers could be put in court. That's a pretty big difference.
If fentanyl is a life sentence in the way you say it is, the cost to society is less if we (ethically) let people kill themselves with regulated fentanyl usage in supervised zones rather than unethically in the streets with drugs of questionable purity purchased through questionable money.
If those people are desperate enough to commit crimes to pay for their mental escapism, then giving them their fentanyl without the crime, while ethically complicated, could have better outcomes for society.
Having pro America institutions (health care) interfacing with people is going to have better outcomes than anti-American (drug cartels and foreign powers) institutions interfacing with people.
Have you ever seen a needle on your sidewalk, in the park your kids play in? Have you ever seen people use dirty needles in front of you? Prohibition doesn't work in America. You can't just make it illegal to leave a needle in a park and expect needles to disappear. Making it easier to do a less bad thing is a different kind of policy than paying more for enforcement (in the form of more taxes in order to pay for more police officers).
Having freedom means being able to make the wrong choice. Keeping freedom is about making responsible choices. If you believe in freedom, then you have to figure out how to help people make responsible choices and have a plan for people making the wrong one.
Monopolizing the supply chain of drugs allows you to dis-empower and destroy cartels as well as offers a "hook" (in the programming sense) to be able to influence the path of those affected.
So you're right that "tax and regulate" makes sense for weed and not fentanyl, but I also don't think you see that there are other forces at work in terms of power. If america is the supplier, america has power. If cartels are the supplier, the cartels have power. If China is the Supplier, then China has power.
If China has that power they can use it to foment misery. If America has that power, they can use it to mitigate the problem.
We've heard this line of reasoning before during the crack epidemic. Policy makers are addicted to authoritarianism. The prison industrial complex profits. Black-marketeers profit. Intelligence agencies profit. Law enforcement agencies are given bigger budgets. Those wishing to use cartels to geopolitical ends profit in the political economy.
Just like with the drug addict, strong malign incentives exist for the continued addiction to authoritarian policy.
Of course, there's no need to go that deep. Simply invoke something scary sounding like, "think of the children", "this new drug is horrifying!" or any of the other stock tropes used to rationalize further expansion of state power. The same faulty lines of reasoning are used in attempts to prohibit encryption.
As long as people are sufficiently scared, there's no need to have a rational debate. Fear is a powerful emotion. Empathy for drug users, not so much. How effective has the last century of prohibition been? No, I don't agree that this is the best solution. Cheaper and more optimal policies exist, but we are stuck with this due to entrenched interests.
The argument around legalize, test and regulate would help ensure the safety of recreational drugs in general, and reduce the black market’s ability to lure people to more addictive and thus profitable substances.
In the spaces I've worked in, so far as I can tell, Fentanyl in accurately measured dosages dings the addict neurons not a whole lot harder than the other chemicals in the family; by that point the user is desensitized to the point that they're surfing the border of lethality already regardless of what they're using. It's not particularly more addictive than good Oxys.
Fentanyl's taken over the entire market not because it's some sort of super junk (all synthetic N02As are "super junk" in terms of addictive potential) but because it is cheap cheap cheap cheap, cheaper even than meth and cat at the height of that craze. Also, and this can't be understated, the synthesis is flexible and has broad precursors. Unfortunately, fent has an LD50 of, like, a molecule, so street chemists don't do so good when they're dosing. Especially if they're some asshole spraying it on fake weed or gas station dick pills. And there's no telling how good the mix is by the time it gets to Dr. Feelgood, anyway. There's zero telling what's got Fent in it right now, although I understand someone's making test strips.
I'm not so hot on the "tax and sell" by private parties. Jesus, we had enough of that. More like the "give it and track". The important part is to just know who's using - being a regular fent user these days is basically like being a combination underwater welder and base jumper, at the same time, as far as mortality goes, so that needs to be known by basically everyone. Along with the "track em", of course, social services- watch 'em like cats (put em in mandated housing if they're a problem), decent rehab, employment workshops, shit that doesn't involve learning how to suppress your gag reflex in an American prison aka "How to brutalize a population in five easy steps".
Most people are getting drug addictis bcz of painkillers which have been regulated and taxed.
Obviously being illegal didn’t prevent addiction, and being legal also doesn’t prevent addiction. Perhaps when it comes to “drug addiction,” the part that actually needs to be addressed is “addiction.”
There are a variety of treatments with a variety of degrees of efficacy but they all involve mitigating harm and providing safe and supportive environments.
Too bad it scored political points with the ignorant to just demonize addicted people and the things to which they’re addicted, almost as if that was the actual reason for the “war” on drugs. (Hint: Look up Nixon & crew’s reasoning.)
If you regulate it and make it legal, you only have a health problem.
That websites says:
> Portugal has not changed the legal status of any drugs. They all remain illegal, however, the offence for possession has been changed from a criminal to a civil one.
> Portugal decriminalised use and possession of all drugs in a way that moves the focus from criminal punishment to treatment.
> Drugs are not freely available, and they cannot legally be sold. If you are caught with a possession quantity of a drug, there are still civil consequences.
> The manufacture, importation and sale of drugs is still very illegal. Even growing your own cannabis is still a criminal matter, as is the possession of cannabis seeds.
So is this what the parent means when they say "regulate it, tax it"? How are recreational drugs "taxed" when they remain illegal?
https://www.drugfoundation.org.nz/matters-of-substance/archi...
But crypto or not, there are many methods of moving currency into China. That's the easy part because there's so much demand to get currency out.
> Elliptic researchers received offers from more than 90 China-based companies to supply fentanyl precursors, 90% of which accepted cryptocurrency payments.
But if they bought it, would the fentanyl precursors arrive?
A graph analysis can show the whole trading network.
EDIT: Found the specific article I was thinking about: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-05-22/deadly-ch...
The USA could simply protect their border and 99% of the supply would dry up (in addition to great reductions in crime that affects ordinary Americans). But then the Democrats wouldn't have a steady flow of illegal (and soon to be legal) voters, so that cannot be allowed to happen.