1440 is a great daily newsletter with least-biased articles about American and world news.
I’ve been using it a couple years now, it’s my favorite news aggregator.
It’s just one daily email with the most significant news of that day, at least one source per story and often multiple sources for the larger stories.
The only ads are text, you can scroll right past them, and they include two or three fluff pieces at the end. Like a cat on a hamster wheel or something so you can get your inane meme fix as well.
I don’t know about drinking, but when you quit smoking, it will take many months for your body to heal. Expect extreme coughing, nausea and other unpleasant side effects. I went through it after more than a decade of heavy smoking and it was not fun at all. But hey, I don’t smoke for over a decade now and couldn’t be happier about it.
Uniquely, the Norwegian special territory of Svalbard is an entirely visa-free zone. No person requires a visa or residence permit and anyone may live and work in Svalbard indefinitely, regardless of citizenship. The Svalbard Treaty grants treaty nationals equal right of abode as Norwegian nationals. So far, non-treaty nationals have been admitted visa-free as well. “Regulations concerning rejection and expulsion from Svalbard” are in force on a non-discriminatory basis. Grounds for exclusion include lack of means of support, and violation of laws or regulations.[52][53][54] Same-day visa-free transit at Oslo Airport is possible when travelling on non-stop flights to Svalbard.
That’s not citizenship, but it’s living and working there without restriction, which is probably about as good as someone’s going to get in the present day. But it’s probably colder than most people would like.
Approximately 60% of the archipelago is covered with glaciers, and the islands feature many mountains and fjords. The archipelago has an Arctic climate, although with significantly higher temperatures than other areas at the same latitude. The flora has adapted to take advantage of the long period of midnight sun to compensate for the polar night. Many seabirds use Svalbard as a breeding ground, and it is home to polar bears, reindeer, the Arctic fox, and certain marine mammals. Seven national parks and 23 nature-reserves cover two-thirds of the archipelago, protecting the largely untouched fragile environment.
EDIT: And income looks pretty solid, even by Western standards:
In 2006, the average income for economically active people was 494,700 kroner, 23% higher than on the mainland.
Converting to 2006 USD and then rolling forward inflation to December 2023, that’d be ~$110,463.54/year.
But part of the reason that they’re gonna be paying that is because the people living there are gonna have to be living in polar twilight for a hefty chunk of the year.
The Svalbard Undersea Cable System is a twin submarine communications cable which connects Svalbard to the mainland of Norway. The two optical fiber cable consist of two segments, from Harstad to Breivika in Andøy, and from Breivika to Hotellneset near Longyearbyen in Svalbard. The segments from Harstad to Breivika are 74 and 61 kilometers (46 and 38 mi) long, respectively, and the segments from Breivika to Hotellneset 1,375 and 1,339 kilometers (854 and 832 mi). Each consists of eight fiber pairs and there are twenty optical communications repeaters on each segment. Each segment has a speed of 10 gigabits per second (Gb/s), with a future potential capacity of 2,500 Gbit/s. The system is now the sole telecommunications link to the archipelago.
The company began Scandinavia’s first 5G pilot back in November 2018, conducted Norway’s first 5G video call, and launched the world’s northernmost 5G pilot in Svalbard. Telenor chose Nordic company Ericsson over Chinese firm Huawei to supply the critical infrastructure for the rollout.
I don’t know whether Starlink orbital paths can cover that far north.
googles
Apparently so, and they started service about five months ago.
Also, in general, if you have legal residence long-term in a country, most countries do permit a route to obtain citizenship. Norway does appear to do this too (though it’s not a guaranteed right, and you need to learn Norwegian as part of that process). Thing is, I don’t know whether legal residence in Svalbard – which is a Norwegian territory, but not part of Norway proper – counts as legal residence in Norway for naturalization purposes, and I could very much believe that that is not the case.
Foreigners may become Norwegian nationals by application after residing in the country for at least seven of the previous ten years, while holding a work or residence permit valid for at least one year. Applicants must be at least 12 years old, demonstrate proficiency in the Norwegian or Sami language (or alternatively complete 300 hours of Norwegian language courses), intend to reside in Norway permanently, pass a good character requirement, and not have a criminal record.[11]
Thinking of an analog, I know that in the US, American Samoa is unusual in that while it is a US territory, American Samoa wanted to run their own immigration policy (because there are people in (non-American) Samoa who they wanted to be able to move in). Both the US and American Samoa were willing for American Samoa to be a US territory, but the US wasn’t willing to have American Samoa just be a back door to general entry to the US if they had different immigration policy. Normally, in an American territory – like Puerto Rico, say – the residents are American citizens. However, because of this independent immigration policy that American Samoa runs, based on the arrangement that the US and American Samoa worked out, American Samoans are not actually American citizens – they are American nationals. While generally they can live and work in the rest of the US, just the fact that American Samoa is okay with someone moving to American Samoa and has the right to let people in as they choose doesn’t necessarily mean that the same person can use that status to just bounce from there to legal status in the rest of the US.
It wouldn’t surprise me if Norway has similar restrictions on people bouncing via legal residence in Svalbard to broader Norway, because the situations are somewhat-similar.
It’s also important to understand that time spent living in Svalbard does not count towards residence in Norway. That means that if you’ve lived in Svalbard for two years, those two years will not count towards a permanent residence application in Norway.
Well, everything is terrible when you subject it to the realities of our modern world. Just turn off that part of your mind for a few moments and enjoy the idea.
I’d guess that warming is probably long-term advantageous in terms of human habitation of Svalbard. We’re not really glacier-dwelling critters. Probably sucks if you’re a polar bear, but…
I don’t understand why people are downvoting this, but up, down, left, right all depend on your frame of reference.
Up in space is nowhere, but at the same time it is everywhere. Those are not physical concepts and they require necessarily a frame of reference to even make sense.
How much money are you bringing with you? There are countries that offer golden visa programs to the wealthy. Some of them may still have residency requirements (e.g. live there for x years) but otherwise it would basically allow anyone with money to become a citizen, or at the bare minimum obtain a visa to live there.
Usually you have to be a resident for a number of years before being eligible for citizenship. Often the process is faster and easier if you meet minimum income or wealth thresholds, because countries like hosting rich expats.
Asking a bunch of non-religious people is nothing but a circle jerk.
People believe in religion for a variety of reasons. I believe in what I believe in because I’ve had personal experiences, and because it gives me a way to be better than I am.
It’s literally their arguments in a nutshell. It’s either Faith or My book says. They can’t have anything else otherwise they’d have produced it over the past 2000 years.
It’s the same people believing in Ghosts. You’re not going to find some Ghost believer Einstein that’ll blow your mind with his reasoning on why he believes in ghosts…
I’m not religious and you’re constantly misrepresenting or simply reducing the reasons why people have faith. That way it’s easier for you to attack them. That’s what a strawman is.
Religion is an alive feature of humanity and what was consensus in e.g. christian faith 400 years ago has been replaced within the church and the faith of the individual believers. Religion isn’t about “proof of existence” anymore, since it stopped being about answering questions that have been answered by science in the meantime.
Contemporary religion is about philosophy and ethics. Claiming that religion can’t answer questions it’s not trying to answer doesn’t proove that religion is moot.
It’s like someone asking why some people like coffee and you can’t understand why people like coffee, because if you can’t survive on coffee alone. The whole premise is outdated.
I guess you’re thinking about american evangelical lunatics and substitute all of spirituality with them. Christianity (and radical islamism) is some weird, imperialist perversion of faith. Forcing other people to boin your religion, or else is not the only mode, spirituality is expressed in the world.
When you’re speaking in such a condescending manner of religious people when you actually mean evangelical lunatics just makes you seem arrogant and keeps you from actually learning anything about your fellow human beings.
I’m not religious and you’re constantly misrepresenting or simply reducing the reasons why people have faith. That way it’s easier for you to attack them. That’s what a strawman is.
Religion is an alive feature of humanity and what was consensus in e.g. christian faith 400 years ago has been replaced within the church and the faith of the individual believers. Religion isn’t about “proof of existence” anymore, since it stopped being about answering questions that have been answered by science in the meantime.
Contemporary religion is about philosophy and ethics. Claiming that religion can’t answer questions it’s not trying to answer doesn’t proove that religion is moot.
It’s like someone asking why some people like coffee and you can’t understand why people like coffee, because if you can’t survive on coffee alone. The whole premise is outdated.
I guess you’re thinking about american evangelical lunatics and substitute all of spirituality with them. Christianity (and radical islamism) is some weird, imperialist perversion of faith. Forcing other people to boin your religion, or else is not the only mode, spirituality is expressed in the world.
When you’re speaking in such a condescending manner of religious people when you actually mean evangelical lunatics just makes you seem arrogant and keeps you from actually learning anything about your fellow human beings.
That’s a very long post, to say “I have no proof…”
I’m not religious and you’re constantly misrepresenting or simply reducing the reasons why people have faith. That way it’s easier for you to attack them. That’s what a strawman is.
I reiterate. If what I’m claiming their reasons are is wrong, give me the reasoning that they are using that I am missing. Stop telling me I’m wrong and show that I am wrong by providing a reason to believe in God that’s not faith or the Bible says.
Religion is an alive feature of humanity and what was consensus in e.g. christian faith 400 years ago has been replaced within the church and the faith of the individual believers. Religion isn’t about “proof of existence” anymore, since it stopped being about answering questions that have been answered by science in the meantime.
This is irrelevant to the discussion and also just your personal opinion.
Contemporary religion is about philosophy and ethics. Claiming that religion can’t answer questions it’s not trying to answer doesn’t proove that religion is moot.
Yea, pretty sure the majority of religious people are going to disagree with you. Religious believers believe in a God and a supernatural realm. What you are saying is simply wrong for the majority of religious followers.
It’s like someone asking why some people like coffee and you can’t understand why people like coffee, because if you can’t survive on coffee alone. The whole premise is outdated.
Horrific analogy. Coffee is real and we can both touch and taste it. Also, coffee doesn’t command us to stone gays or see women as second class citizens. Just horrific analogy.
I guess you’re thinking about american evangelical lunatics and substitute all of spirituality with them. Christianity (and radical islamism) is some weird, imperialist perversion of faith. Forcing other people to boin your religion, or else is not the only mode, spirituality is expressed in the world.
I’m not talking about any religion in particular. They all share the same tenants that I’m attacking here. Belief without good reason.
When you’re speaking in such a condescending manner of religious people when you actually mean evangelical lunatics just makes you seem arrogant and keeps you from actually learning anything about your fellow human beings.
For some reason you feel that me speaking the truth and demanding evidence for religious belief is condescending. When you claim to have all the answers via your imaginary friend and you seek to impose your views on others, I’m going to call you out on it.
This will be my last reply unless your next reply actually provides evidence, as demanded at the beginning of this thread. Otherwise have a great day.
That’s a very long post, to say “I have no proof…”
Yeah. I rejected your command and didnt aim to proof anything.
This is irrelevant to the discussion and also just your personal opinion.
Umm… No, it’s neither? I was explaining how you’re asking the wrong question which religion doesn’t aim to answer.
by providing a reason to believe in God that’s not faith or the Bible says.
I can’t. It’s faith. Faith is the reason to believe in a god. Never claimed anything different.
What you are saying is simply wrong for the majority of religious followers.
You’re just pulling stuff out of your ass that you can’t possibly have any data to. I’ve had productive discussions with people who studied theology.
Horrific analogy. Coffee is real and we can both touch and taste it. Also, coffee doesn’t command us to stone gays or see women as second class citizens. Just horrific analogy.
Yeah, didn’t think that you’d get it, tbh. I was trying to explain that you’re making a cathegorical error by demanding proof of a god. Separate your domains of inquire, my dude.
I’m not talking about any religion in particular. They all share the same tenants that I’m attacking here. Belief without good reason.
Bullshit. You’re dunking on abrahamic religions (“stone gays”) and use these to extrapolate to any religion. You have no idea about paganism, buddhism, sikh, shintoism, etc.
For some reason you feel that me speaking the truth and demanding evidence for religious belief is condescending.
What is the “truth” you’re supposedly speaking? That there is no scientific proof that something supernatural exists? Wow. What a well of wisdom you are. Did you know that you can be a secular buddhist?
When you claim to have all the answers via your imaginary friend and you seek to impose your views on others, I’m going to call you out on it.
You’re confusing christianity (and maybe islam) with every other religion again. Judaism doesn’t have missionaries. Neither do hundreds of other religions.
This will be my last reply unless your next reply actually provides evidence, as demanded at the beginning of this thread. Otherwise have a great day.
I’m not religious and you’re constantly misrepresenting or simply reducing the reasons why people have faith. That way it’s easier for you to attack them. That’s what a strawman is.
Religion is an alive feature of humanity and what was consensus in e.g. christian faith 400 years ago has been replaced within the church and the faith of the individual believers. Religion isn’t about “proof of existence” anymore, since it stopped being about answering questions that have been answered by science in the meantime.
Contemporary religion is about philosophy and ethics. Claiming that religion can’t answer questions it’s not trying to answer doesn’t proove that religion is moot.
It’s like someone asking why some people like coffee and you can’t understand why people like coffee, because if you can’t survive on coffee alone. The whole premise is outdated.
I guess you’re thinking about american evangelical lunatics and substitute all of spirituality with them. Christianity (and radical islamism) is some weird, imperialist perversion of faith. Forcing other people to boin your religion, or else is not the only mode, spirituality is expressed in the world.
When you’re speaking in such a condescending manner of religious people when you actually mean evangelical lunatics just makes you seem arrogant and keeps you from actually learning anything about your fellow human beings.
Having welcomed into my home and talked to quite a number of people preaching door to door (and having even participated in an organised discussion between Physics Degree pupils and a preacher of some Baptist church) I can confirm it’s invariably a logic chain that is either circular or ends up in some supposedly “truth” about which there can be no questioning (aka an axiom) the most basic one being “it says so in the Bible”.
Either that or it’s some poor old ladies who really can’t string much of a logic chain of though (it’s pretty much direct to “it says so in this book”).
And it’s all perfectly acceptable in one’s Personal Sphere. It’s just not an actual argument to justify anything outside the Theological and Personal Spheres, such as, for example, having the Law impose one’s Morality on others or having one’s country managed in one way rather than a different way.
For me Religion is absolutelly fine as long as it stops at the boundary of the religious person’s life and choices, and does not go into shaping other people’s life and choices: believers can feel free to try and convert others so that they shape their own life and choices the same way, just not to force their own morality on others.
You are confusing reasons with proof. Most believe because they choose to. Because believing in God gives them meaning and purpose, and a drive to be better, to do better. And because they have had personal experiences that lead them towards belief.
The proof for them is in the effects that faith has had on them. “By their fruits” and all that. Not far different to the “proofs” of dark matter.
Though it’s very ironic that you stereotype people of faith, and think I’m the one who needs to meet more of them.
Alright, so I was right you have nothing other than “faith”.
I am asking you to provide any evidence for God that I can independently verify.
Faith or how things make you feel are irrelevant. There are people who believe in Goku and like how it makes them feel when they are shooting Kamehamehas… That doesn’t make it real.
You jumped into this conversation train unprepared. I’ve been arguing, reading, discussing and debating religion for decades. I’ve seen it all. God has been shrinking for the past 2000 years.
I’m not even going to touch your dark matter comment because you are also incredibly ignorant on that subject given that you have referenced it in this context.
I never tried to prove God to you. Trying to prove the existence of God is a foolish undertaking. I, quite frankly, don’t care what you believe. I’ve only tried to point out to you that people have plenty of reasons to believe in God that science can’t provide.
You making ignorant ad hominem attacks doesn’t make your bigotry any less transparent. It’s only a comment on you that you’ve ostensibly spent so much time discussing things that are close to people’s hearts without developing a shred of empathy or understanding.
You don’t get to force me into the discussion you want to have by trying to bully me. Your opinion isn’t going to bait me. I’m comfortable with having made the point I wanted to make.
Fair enough, so you also are unable to provide any reason. You seem to think that getting angry and insulting me will somehow magically count as having made a point on the original topic.
No worries, I didn’t expect you to be able to provide anything, because better people than you have tried and failed over the last 2 millenia.
Cartels gone overnight. Handle addiction as a medical problem. With legal MDMA, mushrooms, weed and acid, the hard stuff isn’t going to be anywhere near as big an issue as it is currently.
That doesn’t stop the cartels, not by a long shot. Ending prohibition in the US didn’t eliminate the organized crime families in the US, it just moved them to different areas of corruption. If it’s not alcohol, it’s drugs. If it’s not drugs, then it’s gambling, tax evasion, prostitution, loan sharking, organized theft, and so on and so forth. And without correcting the underlying issues driving alcoholism and drug addiction in the US–particularly poverty–complete decriminalization would lead to huge problems. Has led to huge problems in some cities.
While decriminalizing drugs would help to a degree, you need to correct the underlying problems that have allowed cartels to amass so much power in the first place, like weak governments, lack of opportunities, and high rates of poverty.
All I can do is point to how much power the mob amassed in the US during prohibition, and how long they held that power after prohibition ended. Sure, their revenue took a hit, but they moved fairly smoothly into other areas, and corrupted other power structures in order to build and maintain illicit revenue streams. It wasn’t until the 80s and 90s that the mob families in NYC really saw significant consequences.
As an example? Mozarella cheese on pizza. That was fully controlled by the mob for a long time.
Gambling should never be considered a legit business. IMO casinos et al. should be shut down, for the same reason that payday lenders should be beaten to death in the streets: they’re fundamentally predatory businesses.
The problem with prostitution and organized crime is that it’s not victimless once the mob gets involved. “Bitch better have my money” is a threat; you pay the pimp, or you get beaten, and possibly killed. You want to hire an independent escort? I’m fine with that. But significant amounts of prostitution involve sex trafficking, esp. “agencies” that constantly advertise “new girls”.
All of the businesses that the mob–or any organized criminal gang–is in end up increasing costs due to corruption, and involve the threat of violence if anyone disrupts their money. People that try to compete in sectors controlled by criminal groups tend to end up dead very, very quickly, regardless of what the nature of the business is.
“Prohibition…goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man’s appetite by legislation, and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes.” - Abraham Lincoln
I get that you personally might have moral issues with gambling etc. but making something illegal doesn’t stop it, it just pushes control into the hands of criminals. Want to give me a single instance where prohibition has ever worked?
If you want to stop cartels legalisation is literally the only path.
That’s… Not a good argument. Child pornography and prostitution is illegal because it’s morally reprehensible, and incredibly, profoundly harmful to children. Same with murder, robbery, theft, etc. By definition, anything that is illegal is going to be done–or controlled–only by people that are criminals.
Does prohibition stop those things entirely? No, of course it doesn’t. But it gives society tools to fight against them in a way that decriminalizing does not.
Prohibition doesn’t give society tools, it removes them.
Take prostitution. Legalisation immediately leads to registration of hookers (blocking most human trafficking), gives oversight to inspectors, forces safety standards, allows for checks on welfare etc… It also removes criminals from the chain, pimps, violence, drugs etc… If you do a little research on this you’ll see it’s the better option. If you are a moral person your imperative should be on keeping all parties safe. And you have to realise prohibition never stops it.
Legalization of prostitution is a problem by itself, because the regulatory costs end up being borne by the sex workers (more on that in a tic). For prostitutes that are working at a subsistence level or only doing sex work occasionally as a stop-gap–which is the majority of voluntary prostitution–that’s not going to work. And what do you do, for instance, when a registered sex worker suddenly tests positive for HIV, or hepatitis C? Revoke their license, and then…? Legalizing doesn’t eliminate trafficking, it just pushes the prices for trafficked prostitutes down, because trafficked prostitutes are slaves.
There are definitely harm-reduction models that can, and do, work for sex work, but legalization and regulation–when that regulatory costs are paid by either the sex worker or the customer–will not work the way you think for harm reduction. For the system to work as intended, you would also need things like national single-payer healthcare (…that isn’t constantly getting funding slashed by conservatives), and licensing that was both on-demand and free to the licensee, and you would need something to deal with the loss of income if they contracted an incurable STI. (Otherwise they would continue working, which would be a public health risk.) Inspections, compliance measures, et al. could not be a cost borne by the sew worker/clients or else you’d see non-compliance with regulatory measures. Most sex-worker advocates call for decriminalization rather than legalization/regulation because that’s the model that moves the most risk away from the sex worker, but you do need to also balance the needs of the worker against the the needs of society to a degree.
You seem to be using the cost of regulation as an excuse against decriminalisation or legalisation of prostitution which i find wild.
Firstly a slightly higher cost to cover overhead would be fine for most johns if they didn’t have to risk jail I’d imagine. I’m also sceptical that would even be needed. My understanding is currently in the US pimps take the majority of what sex workers earn.
Remember theres also tax revenue generated here so that would easily cover any government oversight…or does in other countries.
Also take into account that cost of not regulating is far far far higher. It’s like the cost of homelessness - it costs massive amounts to a community oddly! The medical, policing, social services etc etc not to mention cost in terms of violence from criminal behaviour, drug addiction etc etc… At the end of the day it bringing people into society is a far better option for all.
I think a lot of the issue with your interpretation of this is that you feel like Prostitution and Gambling are morally wrong. But that will never stop people from doing those things. You regulate and control it to get the criminals out like they did with gaming commisions to cut the mob out of the gambling. If a woman is getting paid fairly and chooses to be a hooker (which is how it would be if regulated, no pimps probably just a pre pay at the counter kind of thing) and they are tested regularly how is that not a net positive for society? Less STDs, less rapes, no human trafficking because it turns out that a lot of women would absolutely choose to do that work without a pimp that can and probably will hurt you breathing down your neck. Same with gambling we regulated it and people who choose to do it should be allowed to make that choice. Also, did you know that Cocaine and Methamphetamine are not schedule 1 drugs? This is because the US government manufactures controlled amounts of them for legitimate pharmacutical uses. Google it if you dont believe me. Its funny becuase, the cartel has zero control over that and never will. What makes you think that can’t be scaled up and adopted to a wider market? The US government literally manufactures lab grade cocaine and methamphetamine and all kinds of other shit too Ketamine and Opiates and the drug cartels make zero dollars and zero cents off of that process. So to say it can’t be done is ignoring facts.
I don’t take a stance on either from a morality basis.
In regards to gambling, I see it as a fundamentally predatory business model that preys on the people that are least able to afford it. If a rich guy wants to blow a million dollars on blackjack, I don’t fucking care, that’s not my problem. If a poor person is buying $500 in scratchers because that’s they’re only hope for excaping poverty, that’s a problem. Or a retired person that pushes a button as fast as they can on a slot machine, burning through their retirement savings, because that’s the only thing that lights up their dopamine receptors anymore. And there’s a lot more of the latter two than the former. There are also a whoooooole lot of people with gambling problems, and a person that’s blowing all their money on gambling ends up becoming a problem for the people around them, as they are no longer able to take care of their own needs.
The only issue I see with prostitution–aside from the fact that a not insignificant amount is from trafficked victims–is the public health risks. Given that healthcare in the US is outrageously expensive, there’s not a great way for people that are usually working at a near subsistence level to treat STIs. And, for certain STIs (HIV, hepatitis C), they are strongly disincentivized in regards to informing customers, as there’s not cure and long-term treatment is deeply burdensome.
did you know that Cocaine and Methamphetamine are not schedule 1 drugs
Yes. Cocaine and meth are both schedule II, which is used for drugs with a high probability of abuse, but still have recognized medical uses. (Marijuana is currently schedule I, but I believe that the FDA has been asked to re-evaluate it an move it to schedule III, which would make decriminalization much easier, and would mean that it would no longer be a prohibiting factor for buying a firearm.) Cocaine is–or was–used for surgery in highly vascular areas (esp. nose and sinus surgery) because it acts as a vasoconstrictor. Amphetamines used to be issued to soldiers, esp. pilots, that needed to be alert and focused for long periods of time. See also: Aimo Koivunen. The fact that certain drugs do have legitimate medical uses doesn’t mean that the abuse/addiction is not a material problem. Try chatting with anyone that has been prescribed anxiolytic medication, and has tried to titrate their dose down, or discontinue their use entirely (same goes for certain SSRIs, TBH). Yes, drugs are a personal choice, right up until they’re functionally not a choice any more because you’ll suffer serious physiological effects from cessation. And it’s not like the US has a great track record of providing effective assistance for people that want to get cleaned up. Full legalization or all recreational drugs, without also building the necessary social supports, would create far more problems than it would solve.
I do see how the poor person with the scratchers can be a negative for society as a whole, but if you take that freedom of the choice from people many will still choose to do it and then criminals are the only ones controlling it. I think for the prostitution to work (like it does with many tight restrictions in certain counties in Nevada) you would have to enforce safe sex practices and mandatory sti testing for ALL of the possible different ones and this can be achieved with the assloads (lol) of money legalized prostitution would be raking in. As far as the drug conversation goes I pointed that out to show you that drugs can be produced and manufactured and distributed without any criminality involved if you do it correctly. Yes, drug use can affect society negatively and that is why you would use some of the absolute mega fuckton amount of money that industry would be making and require that thr manufacturers themselves (and taxes only on the sales of those goods) are paying for increased treatment and homeless prevention and rehabilitation. I dont think you are considering the obscene amount of money these industries would make if legalized. You use a portion of that money to fix the problems behind it, much like they make tobacco companies do that right now in the us. They did that and slowly but surely tobacco smoking has gone down. Vapes are a bit different but thats another good example of how outlawing something and not regulating it correctly (pods) made the problem significantly worse now we have disposable batteries poisoning the earth because they just can not choose to regulate the things people will do no matter what. It truly dpesnt make any sense to me except from a viewpoint of absolute boot crushing control. Thats the only reason
Gambling: Legal gambling doesn’t stop illegal gambling. Like dog fights, cock fights (which–disappointingly–involve chickens), or people that are out of money and credit; they’re still going exist. It would be healthier for society to make gambling unpopular, rather than squeezing every last bit of revenue out people that usually can’t afford it.
Prostitution: Legalizing under the Nevada model does nothing to illegal prostitution, because the Nevada model puts it out of financial reach for most of the clientele and restricts the locations to places that the clientele usually aren’t (e.g., they’re a long way out of the city, and you have to drive several hours from Vegas to get to the closest one). An (illegal) independent escort in Las Vegas will typically cost $350-500 per hour, and quite possibly far, far more. A sex worker at a legal brothel will easily cost more than $1000 for the same time period. A sex worker controlled by a pimp is going to be $200 or less, and have less ability–or no ability–to refuse acts that s/he doesn’t want to do. The cost of compliance with regulations is on the sex worker, who passes it on to the clientele; that regulatory model means that legal avenues will end up being less affordable to people than illicit avenues. (And, given that you can pretty easily find escorts working in Vegas despite legal options being available in the state, I think it’s pretty clear that people will be price sensitive.
Drugs: Same issue. Regulatory oversight–which is necessary for recreational drugs to not kill people unintentionally–increases costs, and those costs get passed to the consumer. For a very real-world example, a single 10mL vial of 200mg/mL testosterone cypionate costs about $60 at Costco, and over $100 at Walgreens, et al.. (Testosterone cypionate is a schedule III drug.) You can buy a 20mL vial of 300mg/mL testosterone cypionate on the black market for anywhere from $30-60. You can buy raw hormone powder for under $2/gram (e.g., the raw hormone used in the black market 20mL vial costs the producer $12 or less). A therapeutic dose will be perhaps 150-200mg/week, depending on your own physiology, and what you’re target blood values are. An IFBB pro bodybuilder is going to go through a minimum of 3,000 mg/week during a bulk. If an IFBB pro were to buy their testosterone cypionate legally–if they didn’t need a prescription–it would cost $90/week, versus $15-30. (This ignores all the other shit they take, too.) IFBB guys have been using their black market suppliers for years, maybe decades; what’s their incentive to pay 3-6x as much for something they aren’t going to see a difference in? Legal marijuana has depressed prices for illegal marijuana, but it’s still cheaper to buy a quarter from my local guy than it is to buy in a dispensary.
much like they make tobacco companies do that right now in the us.
Organized crime makes a fuckton of money by forging tax stamps on cigarettes to evade taxes. Before prices started going up dramatically on cigarettes (which I think was a good thing, since smoking doesn’t end up costing just the smoker), that kind of fraud and tax evasion was chump change. Now it’s millions.
People are posting all kinds of ridiculous solutions that they know are impossible. Legalize drugs. Use less drugs. The cartels run more than just drugs! They run fucking avocados!! And electronics!! They have diversified. Never mind that it’s politically impossible to do anything like that. It can’t happen.
Invading Mexico and shooting the cartels CAN happen. It gives money to the defense industry, which itself is enough reason that it could happen. It’s probably even in the USA’s best interest to try and de-corrupt Mexico (never mind that this would be a bloody mess with huge loss of life). My point isn’t that it’s a good idea, it’s that it’s a solution that could actually happen in real life.
Heres an idea, reguate the drug and prostitution trade and let them keep their electronics and avocadoes and shit. They will take a major hit financial wise and be forced to be merchants selling Avocadoes and electronics
Legalize and regulate the drug trade and prostitution. Would overnight make those activities significantly less harmful and you would be able to put all that blank check DEA money into treatments and going after child traffickers which is the only market that shouldnt be regulated or exist. Wow. Problem fucking solved. Let them keep their avocadoes and shit. Boom, we just solved billions of dollars worth of problems and can actually use these things to better society for ourselves and the people that the cartel terrorize with this shit. Almost like, they dont want the problem to be solved.
A thing to remember is that legal prostitution is still a vector in the human trafficking trade. Even where it’s legal, women are forcefully relocated to those nations and forced to work.
Most of the prostitution issues would be handled, but you would still need to account for it.
You would have to make it legal everywhere or at least as many places as possible. The world followed the US lead on the drug war Im sure they could follow our lead with this too. Especially if you could demonstrate how it would hurt these criminal operations. If prostitution is legalized in 70% of countries, you just destroyed 70% of their human trafficking operations. Yes there would be the remaining 30% of countries but they already are experiencing that the demand isnt going to go up 70% in those few remaining 30% of countries.
Even in countries where prostitution is legal women are being trafficked against their will to those countries to be forced into sex work.
They’re already being trafficked to the US to be forced into prostitution, why would they care if it’s legalized. It wouldn’t affect their trafficking.
But I also feel you may be inflating the ramifications of legalization of drugs and prostitution. I believe it was Canada or one of the US states where the cost of legally sold Marijuana was still too high and people turned to their old dealers. You’d see the cartel enter the market again with cheaper, more dangerous options for those who can’t afford the higher priced, taxed, and regulated products.
We can regulate those who wish to operate above board, but you can’t stop the pipeline.
Just to clarify, are you asking so you can start containing the cat at night so that they only miss the box in an easy to clean room? Because trying to correct behavior only works if it’s immediately after they poop on the floor, if any time passes they won’t make the correct association.
How many cats do you have?
How many litter boxes do you have?
Is the litter mat kept clean and washed regularly (and not only because it was pooped on)?
There should ideally be at least 1 litter box per cat, plus 1 more to reduce the chance of stress pooping.
As others have mentioned, cats will also sometimes avoid going in a box if they perceive problems with it, eg too much/too little litter, box hasn’t been scooped recently enough, etc.
I think im going to go back to the previous mat placement since I wasnmt have that issue. She’s also rarely shit on the bathrug in the washroom and the litter is always kept scooped/clean and sufficient but not excessive (enough to bury it if they wish even though its sifted immediately). Something something mats, probably picked that up with her dogshit previous owner 😹
Also, negative enforcement is not very effective with cats. Punishment just equals “don’t do it when the human is around”, unless you specifically keep watch from outside the room or something. I’m not saying it doesn’t work, but be prepared to spend months on this.
asklemmy
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.