If that’s what you got from my comment you have serious reading comprehension problems. I am against the war on drugs.

Merriam Webster “any controlled substance, whether sedative or stimulant:”

Merriam Webster 2nd definition “any controlled substance, whether sedative or stimulant:”

Almost entirely is NOT the same as entirely.

I didn’t realise the DEA were the only people who could define things. Outside of the US it can generally refer to illegal drugs

Are you telling me Merriam Webster and Dictionary.com is wrong? Things can have colloquial definitions

As a chronic masturbator I always though cum socks were a myth as tissues have been invented. You live and learn.

Not by all definitions of the word, narcotic can just mean an illegal drug. Different dictionaries define the word differently.

Really annoying how I’ve been downvoted for this, Merriam Webster defines a narcotic as “any controlled substance, whether sedative or stimulant:”

A quick Google search “a drug or other substance that affects mood or behaviour and is consumed for non-medical purposes, especially one sold illegally.”

Merriam Webster “any controlled substance, whether sedative or stimulant:”

I’m a millennial, just trying to not let the world’s ills bother me now. Life is too short and what you make it.

They are narcotics though by definition.

Edit Merriam Webster: “any controlled substance, whether sedative or stimulant:”

I LIKE MAGIC MUSHROOMS YOU TWATS IM JUST CORRECT

Lemmy is so fucking stubborn when presented with conflicting information. Grow up you bell ends.

You’re so far gone in your cop hatred you see me as quoting the dictionary as somehow sticking up for cops. That’s how polarised and shitty you are.

Why does investment entitle people to live off said thing? That’s because there are agreements between the parties involved. If I want to start a business and need seed money I willingly enter a contract with investors just as they willingly risk their investment capital.

Of course they are more efficient, nobody sets up co operatives. If they were a more efficient way of running a business more people would do it.

Geopolitical, as in a combination of political, cultural and geographical.

I don’t think noting the problem is partially political is enough to say it’s easily solveable.

I think we’re coming at this from a different philosophy, you see politics as something that is easily changeable, I see it as a product of environmental and cultural positions. Changing the entire world’s politics is a nigh on impossible task.

You see geopolitics as a variable, I see it as a constraint on the actual variables.

There is thinking there are no logistics problems we can’t solve and then there is actually solving them taking into account real geopolitics.

It’s clearly because we haven’t had a socialist revolution. That would sort all logistical and societal problems out forever.

I’ve already admitted the word raid was the incorrect one. I was just questioning the idea that farmers should produce food for no compensation and that anybody should be free to work their land.

But the crucial thing is, people are already allowed to form co-operatives, there is nothing stopping you doing it for example. But outside of a select few niche industries they are generally less efficient and get outcompeted by traditional top down companies.

We don’t have solutions for starvation at all on a global scale and we do try to feed everyone in developed nations that’s why countries have welfare. I agree the welfare safety net should be stronger generally, but I don’t think people starving to death is a widespread issue in developed nations. The homeless are much more likely to die due to lack of shelter or drug issues.

Yes because seeds are the only resource people fight over…

I would argue the primary cause of all of these problems is that we live in a world of finite resources. I think all of those things would still be problems under any political system we tried to implement. If there was plenty of resources for everyone we would just multiply until that wasn’t the case any more.

I reject the notion that we could rid the world of these things, the entirety of human history provides empirical evidence that backs me up on this. I think it’s fantastical to think we could rid the world of these things, all we can do is try to reduce the impact as best we can in the limited ways that we can as individuals and as a society.

I invented a hypothetical scenario for a thought experiment yes. I don’t think it’s implausible as a scenario in a communal situation. If there is no private farmland property there is nothing to stop people just straight up taking things and abusing the goodwill of the farmer.

You need to define what you mean by not working.

Of course discussion is needed. How else do you expand your mind and thoughts without discussing things? I don’t take your views as being inherently true in much the same way you don’t take mine, that’s healthy and normal.