It should be sold by the government then. Similar to how government handles the lottery, if they didn’t then some organized criminals would do it instead. They can control the stores and the packaging so it doesnt seem fun and cool and is just dosage information and a bunch of health facts and treatment plans. They can then direct the revenues to treatment and education.

If you just decriminalize consumption without legalizing some way to buy it then the black market and a lot of the problems with the war on drugs continue: crime, violence, lack of regulation etc.

I don’t have much faith in us handling it this way though considering the way we just effectively legalized gambling and now the most predatory companies are flooding addicts with advertisements to get them to gamble more.

So do alcohol companies, and they have a way higher marketing budget to convince you it’s harmless and just a fun thing to do when you hang out with your attractive friends.

Yeah, but it’s be hard to tell whether legalization would lower the rating or raise it as there’s a lot of confounding factors. For example overdoses and direct mortality would probably go down since people could dose properly instead of guessing. Crime and financial issues could also go down with an open market making it cheaper and safer.

On the other hand larger scale societal problems could be revealed by mass availability. Also more health problems from chronic use could be revealed once legalization allows for more and larger studies. Or maybe current studies on it are overestimating the harms because current illicit cocaine users tend to be unhealthy for other reasons and your average person will have less problems with cocaine use.

Either way I think it’d be hard to argue cocaine isn’t at least on the same level as alcohol and should be legal. Contrary to mainstream discourse that views it as some evil powder that will make you addicted if you even look at it.

Most drug harm experts think so:

Source

This isn’t insurance companies, the LA fires alone cost $250 billion, ~the gdp of new Zealand. Even if we abolished insurance companies someone’s gotta pay for that. In that vein a lot of insurance companies are abolishing themselves, either going under or just leaving the state because Californiais a net loss to most companies, not a profit. So more people go on state insurance which is very expensive, not because the state is “r*ping you” but because it’s a pool of houses highly likely to be burned down or flooded in the next decade and you have to have high premiums to cover that.

The problem is climate change and the increasing disasters it’s causing. The article even says that premiums are still too low to account for this.

First Street found that today, insurance underprices climate risk for 39 million properties across the continental United States — meaning that for 27% of properties in the country, premiums are too low to cover their climate exposure.

Propublica link to the same article

No offense to op but I think they deserve the clicks more than NYT

There are like 5 people who post 90% of the content on lemmy. Cm0002 is one of them and really hates tankies / anyone to the left of them.

Most of the content on the “tankie triad” is general left wing anti-us stuff. Occasionally they’ll be some post praising China then some liberal will comment something about tianemen square or uyghurs, get banned , and then complain that the whole instance is full of genocide apologists.

It’s not like there are regular posts praising Kim jung un or maduro like the liberals make it out to be. There are a decent amount shitting on liberals, like the reverse of this post, which perpetuates this dumb instance war. It’d be best if it stopped as were all “radical leftists” in The eyes of the rest of society and were gonna need some sort of solidarity to accomplish the 90% of things we agree on.