There was a very simple reason for them: to hire more non-Asian minority faculty. Just as with SAT scores, if you evaluate candidates numerically, Asian faculty will take ~50% of the spots and Black faculty will take ~1% of the spots. But if you add a job requirement of "has helped do DEI woo for Black students" then it's a lot easier to justify hiring the Black candidate.
In banning the death penalty for rape, the US Supreme Court explicitly... in black letter text... left open the possibility of executing major drug traffickers. We should use that door more often.
Singapore is certainly an appealing model to a certain segment of the population. They have mandatory death penalty for drug traffickers. However, what most people don’t want to talk about is the robust social safety net that Singapore also has. In Singapore the police can arrest homeless people for sleeping on the streets. But they also have ample housing available for them. In San Francisco, there literally is no place for a homeless person but the streets. The waitlist can take months or years.
After decades of propaganda, far right media has convinced a large part of the American public that social welfare programs don’t work. Of course they did this after first defunding those social programs. So of course the only option left is punishment.
But if anything, the US “war on drugs” has only proven that punishment alone isn’t enough. Thankfully people are starting to wake up to that fact.
The problems with prohibition are well documented. There's a good reason we re-legalized alcohol, and we suffer those same problems with the current prohibitions (the creation of a multibillion-dollar organized crime market).
I think it's important that we define exactly what it is that we're trying to mitigate / accomplish with drug laws in general. If it's the reduction of harm, then we're going about it completely wrong.
The overwhelming majority of overdoses are from opioids [1] and yet we treat lsd, mdma, cocaine, and a whole slew of psychedelics exactly the same as heroin. There's evidence [2] that suggests that prescription opioids drive abuse behavior.
It's known that fentanyl adulteration drives a significant portion of OD deaths [3] even if it's hard to get good numbers on how many of these ODs are adulterated compounds vs just fentanyl because of how the numbers are reported. If we legalized everything but opioids, a significant portion of these ODs could be easily avoided.
The DEA has failed it's mandate, and it's time to disband them, end the prohibition, and focus on harm reduction techniques rather than incarceration. We could also spend a little more time reigning in "legitimate" organizations like Purdue Pharma, who cause unarguable harm in the guise of medicine.
Naw, the death penalty is much harsher penalty (seeing as how almost all death row inmates use every means possible to avoid it). Particularly so for white collar people who never thought they would be tied to a tree and shot 10 times in the heart. Just the thought of that happening can deter a lot of people, and even if it doesn't, it's what she deserves.
Crazy in this age to look at that hex dump and realize that it is a chess playing program. One way of thinking about it: the first image on the web page is 27 times the size of the program.
Is it so surprising that Motel 6 is more operationally efficient? That Sarah needs more money than Motel 6 to allow a unknown stranger into her living space and to clean up after them, rather than a gigantic hotel chain with decades of experience and thousands of locations?
Why shouldn't your neighbors be able to use their powers as voters to lobby their government to pass laws preventing their quiet suburban street from being used as a distributed hotel?
Your framing is such a good defense of the arbitrary and thoughtless use and abuse of political power. "Use your power as a voter", what could go wrong?
Why shouldn't our neighbors use their powers as voters to keep their peaceful suburban street from being used as housing for migrants, minorities and other undesirables? I'd bet that'll affect housing desirability far more than short term rentals.
Why shouldn't they use their power as voters to ban the construction of affordable homes in their vicinity?
Why shouldn't we use our power as voters to proscribe alcohol in their town? What could go wrong?
Your power as a voter isn't supposed to be the power to arbitrary meddle in other people's business.
So, you think there is an equivalence between migrants and minorities who are long term renters who had to pay a deposit, got a background check and credit check compared to short term Airbnb “guests”?
Are you okay with a meat packing plant in your neighborhood?
Yes, all of those should be legal. And other voters can oppose them. For example, by electing national politicians who can pass laws like the Civil Rights Act or the Fair Housing Act.
This. I hate staying in hotels and love varied and individual places like airbnb has, but this is simply valid.
As a consumer, it has to be good enough if there are only some areas where it's allowed, and some where it's not. Or maybe allowed but only up to a certain density or percentage.
Anywhere it would be allowed without limit I would probably not want anyway, just like a hotel. Most airbnbs are run like little hotels now anyway and I hate most of those, but at least there is variety and plenty are good still.
