this post was submitted on 07 Oct 2024
647 points (99.7% liked)

World News

39082 readers
3642 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The mayor of a Mexican city plagued by drug violence has been murdered less than a week after taking office.

Alejandro Arcos was found dead on Sunday in Chilpancingo, a city of around 280,000 people in the southwestern state of Guerrero. He had been mayor for six days.

Evelyn Salgado, the state governor, said the city was in mourning over a murder that "fills us with indignation". His death came three days after the city government's new secretary, Francisco Tapia, was shot dead.

Authorities have not released details of the investigation, or suspects. However, Guerrero is one of the worst-affected states for drug violence and drug cartels have murdered dozens of politicians across the country.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Gammelfisch@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I believe Switzerland was the first country to establish centers where drug addicts would receive a controlled dosage for "free." Of course paid for by taxes. The Suisse found out crime decreased, the parks were cleaner and emergency rooms saw fewer overdose patients. Basically a win across the board.

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

That happens when much of citizenry can be characterized as "rich blokes who will take coke at some point with no shadow of doubt". When everyone involved knows that, including the voters, it's an easy decision.

However, in many other countries the general population mostly forms their opinion on drugs, weapons and even political freedoms based on fear of what will happen.

They don't look at all this critically, thus don't understand that the worst things happening because of the current state of things they don't know anything about, because information is not and will never be as available as their thought process requires.

That involves said current state of things funding things like cartels, criminal groups in governments involved in drug trade (it's much more profitable when you ban all the competition), creating a vector of control over addicted people. These all have ugly consequences - violence abroad, strong (and rich) mafia groups in governments.

The correct thought process would be comparing abstract mechanisms. In abstract no consumable substance should be illegal, provided the buyer knows its contents and effects.

BTW, in abstract the right policy about weapons ownership would be opt out, not opt in, - mandatory mental examination of every adult citizen, but also mandatory weapons ownership for those who pass it! Perhaps except felons. With other exceptions being a process involving some justification being filed - as in pacifist views, religious reasons, bad atmosphere in family thus inability to keep it secure, something like that. It's not about "good guy with a gun", it's about distributing real power. People who should own weapons are not the same people who want to own weapons generally. Thus mandatory.