[neurobashing]

I assume the parent comment's reasoning is, roughly:

The War on Drugs was, from one point of view, essentially a soft invasion of central and south American countries; we sent DEA and military "advisors" to burn the crops of farmers while the CIA treated narcos like Soviets.

Indisputable that, eg, yes mexican farmers were growing kush (or making coke, etc) at the behest of powerful cartels. They were totally doing that.

It did not spend as much effort on why and how drugs became what they are in our own country; laws had disproportionate impacts on some communities; treatment was the refuge of the privileged. Slaking the need for drugs is more than border enforcement, from this perspective.

So yeah, some dope comes from point A to point B, so stop it from making it to point B, but also look at what's going on at point B to fix the problems that aren't trafficking.

[pjc50]

Indeed. The War on Drugs is the kind of solution America likes, because it's a war; and as a side benefit the CIA gets to mess with the soverignty of various small countries. Effectiveness for actually helping the victims was never part of the point. If they didn't die they could be jailed and used as forced labour.

[taylorswift_]

that's why I said "part" of a conversation. If it's known that China (or any nation) is actively working against our citizens interests, it certainly makes sense to include in any conversations relating to foreign affairs with that country. Does that benefit people addicted to drugs in America? No. But it may benefit people who could *potentially be addicted in the future.