politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. 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.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
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.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
I wonder if commenters here went beyond the headline, or bothered to read the quote in the comments.
The actual quote is not remotely as sinister. He said that he will start these community farms (which is not a labour camp for f sake) where addicts (which is not everyone who takes meds, it’s those who do but shouldn’t, of which there are thousands) can voluntarily choose to go, which is a far cry from “I’ll shove anybody who takes antidepressants into a labour camp” as the title suggests.
There are a lot of people who take meds from dealers instead of doctors, who may have started recreationally but are now addicted to them. This is what he is lumping together with other kinds of drug addicts. It’s not even that stupid, it has been shown in studies that addiction is more effectively addressed by giving the person meaningful things to do.
Now you can have your opinion on this idea and you can be skeptical of his implementation and you really should, the guy is a nut job who shouldn’t be allowed within ten kilometres from a government office - but sending regular joes to concentration camps because they take meds is not what he said.
This title is rage bait, don’t fall for it.
Yep, this sounds like the harm reduction approach that the left has been advocating for. It sounds like these are alternatives to prison for people with addictions. Not saying he'll be able to make it work, but "tax cannabis + harm reduction" is much better than what a lot of Republicans' drug policies are.
The problem is:
I don't disagree with either of those points, I just don't think they're supported in the article. That's why it's rage bait.
Can you provide a source for this? I have seen RFK claim vaccines are harmful, but the above seems inaccurately broad. RFK's criticism of vaccines seems to stem from a misguided goal of "proving" they are safe. I suspect his definition of "safe" does not match the FDA's. For example, aspirin causes many deaths and injuries each year (aka "not safe"), but I haven't seen RFK moving to ban aspirin.
The belief that proposed government funded "wellness farms" would mutate into prison camps where citizens would be confined seems needlessly paranoid to me, but you can be as scared as you want. If there was a prediction market available on whether RFK would involuntary confine American citizens to prison camps in the next 4 years, I would gladly bet against that eventuality.
And yet downvotes are pouring 🫠
You were right about it being rage bait, too bad everyone fell for it.
Yeah honestly it sounds like a government program I'd support if it was proposed by someone like Barack Obama. So 🤷. I hope it's successful and that they look at introducing more government-led programs and initiatives for people in need (I'm not holding my breath)
Sad that I had to scroll all the way to the bottom to find someone who actually read the article. Has Lemmy become reddit?
Always has been