> Grammatically, 'there "are" drugs in Iceland', but that's besides the point.
Welp, honest gramatical mistake from a non-native speaker. Even the best of us make mistakes sometimes, thanks for the correction.
Having said that, please don't correct me any more, I personally felt it more pedantic than helpful, and I think you can read over small issues like that to keep conversation centered on what matters (:
> Anecdotally, I've been around them in Iceland and they were treated as a rarity and not like they are here (northeast US), where I could find them within 30 minutes of asking.
Anecdotally, I go to school in the northeast US, and I know the density of consumers there is pretty high; I assume higher than Iceland. Unsurprising there's dealers all over too.
--
I see what debate we're falling into here; does supply create it's own demand? There's plenty of literature on the issue, and I will agree with you in that the easy of supply matters.
Your original comment and subsequent replies make me believe you think drugs is a supply-centered issue, when in fact thats far from true, and I know this for two reasons:
1. The US has for years been on a "war on drugs", and now they brought Mexico into it. Yet this hasn't been effective at all as a means of stopping drug consumption.
2. Island tackled drug demand instead, and it had fantastic results.
Is supply in Iceland constrained? For certain drugs perhaps. But this doesn't matter to the main point of the article. We can have a look at a point I made you didn't address; weed. Weed consumption is on the ground in Iceland, yet anyone could grow weed in their backyard to satisfy supply. Alcohol is legal in Iceland too, I suppose there is a lot of supply. 20 years ago, they were trying to cut supply and it didn't work. So now they did something different, and it worked.
Look, if you think the reason the US is in such a bad drug situation all because of Mexico, I can't convince you you're wrong, you'll have to figure that one out on your own. What would convince you of this? What data is needed to convince people like you of the fact the problem is in the demand and so the US should focus on the well-being of its population instead of paying lots of money so Mexicans kill each other?
> Having said that, please don't correct me any more, I personally felt it more pedantic than helpful,
And won't do :)
Didn't mean it to be pedantic -- I spend a lot of time around non-native english speakers and "correct mistakes in passing" without any sort of judgment. Likewise, they correct my grammatical/word-choice issues with non-english languages, but apologies if I offended as that was not the point.
--
> Your original comment and subsequent replies make me believe you think drugs is a supply-centered issue
Not entirely, but in first-time users or casual users, it definitely changes the equation of whether or not they get pulled into an evening.
> 1. The US has for years been on a "war on drugs", and now they brought Mexico into it. Yet this hasn't been effective at all as a means of stopping drug consumption.
I think Mexico has always been a part of it -- the US is quite effective in reducing/policing large-scale illicit drug production within its borders, but this doesn't really matter when we have a neighbor with no meaningful interest in doing so as long as the harm is extra-national.
> We can have a look at a point I made you didn't address; weed.
Sorry, I mentioned this in a different comment, but weed is a far different thing than what I consider to be serious drugs. It's still not something you can wildly grow in Icelandic climate or soil though.
> Look, if you think the reason the US is in such a bad drug situation all because of Mexico, I can't convince you you're wrong, you'll have to figure that one out on your own.
I didn't say that the US's addiction problems are fully because of Mexico (or other weakly policed nations), near did I think I imply it.
> What data is needed to convince people like you of the fact the problem is in the demand and so the US should focus on the well-being of its population instead of paying lots of money so Mexicans kill each other?
Do you really think Americans pay money for Mexicans to kill each other? I'm sorry, but this is absurd. Making something illegal will reduce its supply (drugs, guns) and create a market for criminals. If a country can't control the criminals within its borders, or worse, as is the case with Mexico, lets itself be controlled by crime and corruption, that's a demonstration of a failure of government.
Sorry, won't do.
> Grammatically, 'there "are" drugs in Iceland', but that's besides the point.
Welp, honest gramatical mistake from a non-native speaker. Even the best of us make mistakes sometimes, thanks for the correction.
Having said that, please don't correct me any more, I personally felt it more pedantic than helpful, and I think you can read over small issues like that to keep conversation centered on what matters (:
> Anecdotally, I've been around them in Iceland and they were treated as a rarity and not like they are here (northeast US), where I could find them within 30 minutes of asking.
Anecdotally, I go to school in the northeast US, and I know the density of consumers there is pretty high; I assume higher than Iceland. Unsurprising there's dealers all over too.
--
I see what debate we're falling into here; does supply create it's own demand? There's plenty of literature on the issue, and I will agree with you in that the easy of supply matters.
Your original comment and subsequent replies make me believe you think drugs is a supply-centered issue, when in fact thats far from true, and I know this for two reasons:
1. The US has for years been on a "war on drugs", and now they brought Mexico into it. Yet this hasn't been effective at all as a means of stopping drug consumption.
2. Island tackled drug demand instead, and it had fantastic results.
Is supply in Iceland constrained? For certain drugs perhaps. But this doesn't matter to the main point of the article. We can have a look at a point I made you didn't address; weed. Weed consumption is on the ground in Iceland, yet anyone could grow weed in their backyard to satisfy supply. Alcohol is legal in Iceland too, I suppose there is a lot of supply. 20 years ago, they were trying to cut supply and it didn't work. So now they did something different, and it worked.
Look, if you think the reason the US is in such a bad drug situation all because of Mexico, I can't convince you you're wrong, you'll have to figure that one out on your own. What would convince you of this? What data is needed to convince people like you of the fact the problem is in the demand and so the US should focus on the well-being of its population instead of paying lots of money so Mexicans kill each other?