Thread: U.S. Falters in Screening Border Patrol Near Mexico

Originally Posted by MW

Judy,

I've noticed that you utilize a lot of facts and figures to support most of your arguments, which is great. However, to put it gently, those facts and figures lose a lot of punch power when there is no source identified for verification. Please, if at all possible, in the future would you provide a source to the so-called facts and figures your provide to strengthen your argument. Thank you.

As for the drug legalization argument, I'll stick to marijuana because legalizing the entire illegal drug market is a non-starter (it won't happen in our lifetime).

First off, I'm very skeptical when I hear someone attempting to pass off a single solution as a cure for so many individual problem. Legalizing marijuana would bring on a host of problems that you seem to be overlooking. Legalized, regulated drugs is not a panacea. Pharmaceutical drugs in this country are tightly regulated and government controlled, yet we know they cause untold physical, emotional, and financial damage to those individuals who abuse them. Additionally, these abuses often prove costly to family members too.

To test the idea of legalizing and taxing marijuana, we only need to look at already legal drugs (alcohol and tobacco). It's a well know fact that the taxes collected on those substances pale in comparison to the social and health care costs related to their widespread use. IMHO, legalizing illegal drugs would only increase the economic and social costs that result from greater drug acceptance and use. IMO, the biggest losers to legalizing the drug trade will be our children and future generations of Americans.

If you persist in your argument about financial saving to our country, I've just got one thing to say.........It can't always be about the money!

Why don't you watch the video link I posted at Law Enforcement Against Prohibition which provides the facts and figures about the War on Drugs I discussed?

Here's the link to the video:

http://www.leap.cc/cms/index.php?name=Content&pid=28

Here's the link to the LEAP website:

www.leap.cc

Here's the link to the Marijuana Policy Project:

http://www.mpp.org/

Here's the link to the Vote Hemp Project:

http://www.votehemp.com/mission_goals.html

Yes, I'm familiar with the "children" argument. It's up to parents to know where their children are, what they're doing and who they're doing it with. Nonetheless, under my legalization plan, it will still be illegal for children to use drugs or for anyone to sell it to them, the same as it is now, but they will be better informed, if they do get drugs, they'll have less of them with directions, the mixes will be right so they don't kill them in an unintentional overdose, and if they get in too deep, they'll have free medical care and rehabilitation available on demand without stigma paid for by drug users.

Originally Posted by JohnDoe2

Anyone trying to convince me that legalizing heroine, meth, etc. is a sane, intelligent decision
is probably wasting their time.
I have seen illegal drugs destroy the lives of to many people that I personally know,
and I have seen the same thing happen with legal prescription drugs.
Making any drug legal will not take away the problems, death and destruction of addiction.

Were those drugs illegal as they destroyed the lives of the people you personally know? Did putting them in prison help them or hurt them? Did they get rehab and if so who paid for it?

Judy wrote:

Yes, I'm familiar with the "children" argument. It's up to parents to know where their children are, what they're doing and who they're doing it with. Nonetheless, under my legalization plan, it will still be illegal for children to use drugs or for anyone to sell it to them, the same as it is now, but they will be better informed, if they do get drugs, they'll have less of them with directions, the mixes will be right so they don't kill them in an unintentional overdose, and if they get in too deep, they'll have free medical care and rehabilitation available on demand without stigma paid for by drug users.

Geez Judy, you can't be real.

Originally Posted by MW

Judy wrote:

Yes, I'm familiar with the "children" argument. It's up to parents to know where their children are, what they're doing and who they're doing it with. Nonetheless, under my legalization plan, it will still be illegal for children to use drugs or for anyone to sell it to them, the same as it is now, but they will be better informed, if they do get drugs, they'll have less of them with directions, the mixes will be right so they don't kill them in an unintentional overdose, and if they get in too deep, they'll have free medical care and rehabilitation available on demand without stigma paid for by drug users.

Geez Judy, you can't be real.

Geez MW, you want children buying drugs in alley ways from foreign cartels in any quantity they want with bad cuts and no education or instructions about the risk of use and its consequences in an environment where they can't get help or information or discussion about it with anyone except the drug dealer toting a 357 Magnum shooting up their neighborhood trying to force them to use?

You're entitled to your view, but WOW does that suck.

Let me know when you think the War on Drugs is working. And please post some links that show less people are addicted and less people are using and the drug trade doesn't have anything to do with open borders and illegal immigration, and that there are 7 whites in prison to every 1 black instead of the other way around and then ... I might consider continuing this disaster. But for 97 years, your way has failed totally and completely, even though it HAS made quite a few Americans a lot of money prosecuting and defending the laws and incarcerating those convicted of non-violent drug charges. It's a big business for those feeding off it, but there's been no improvement in the addiction rate, it's still 2%, and the industry grows every year with the population, so it's been an EPIC FAIL, in my opinion and many others including DEA agents, police chiefs and Judges who were part of it and saw it for what it really is.

www.leap.cc

Like I said earlier and have always said in these posts on the drug issue, I support legalization on any and every level. So if you and JohnDoe2 support legalizing marijuana, then get busy and get R done. That will reduce at least 60% of the traffic over our borders, shut down at least 60% of the foreign cartel business operating in 230 American cities, and that'll get at least 60% of the poor schmucks in prison out of jail. And that's at least a step in the right direction.

But why you'd still want these cartels running 40% of the trade for the most dangerous of drugs, is not something I'll ever understand.

Originally Posted by Judy

Originally Posted by JohnDoe2

Anyone trying to convince me that legalizing heroine, meth, etc. is a sane, intelligent decision
is probably wasting their time.
I have seen illegal drugs destroy the lives of to many people that I personally know,
and I have seen the same thing happen with legal prescription drugs.
Making any drug legal will not take away the problems, death and destruction of addiction.

Were those drugs illegal as they destroyed the lives of the people you personally know? Did putting them in prison help them or hurt them? Did they get rehab and if so who paid for it?

A friend of mine (from many years ago who is no longer my friend or even associate) has been through at least 8 rehab programs. Some instead of going to prison, some in prison. The tax payers paid for all of them and none worked for more than 30 days. He once had needle marks on his arm the same day he left the rehab program. He has used legal prescription drugs and illegal drugs, so legal or illegal makes no difference to an addict. Anything that would get him high. Last time I saw him he looked like he had one foot in the grave. His mother has had to live with the pain of watching him destroy himself slowly over the years. Nothing you say will ever take away her pain.

Originally Posted by JohnDoe2

Originally Posted by Judy

Originally Posted by JohnDoe2

Anyone trying to convince me that legalizing heroine, meth, etc. is a sane, intelligent decision
is probably wasting their time.
I have seen illegal drugs destroy the lives of to many people that I personally know,
and I have seen the same thing happen with legal prescription drugs.
Making any drug legal will not take away the problems, death and destruction of addiction.

Were those drugs illegal as they destroyed the lives of the people you personally know? Did putting them in prison help them or hurt them? Did they get rehab and if so who paid for it?

A friend of mine (from many years ago who is no longer my friend or even associate) has been through at least 8 rehab programs. Some instead of going to prison, some in prison. The tax payers paid for all of them and none worked for more than 30 days. He once had needle marks on his arm the same day he left the rehab program. He has used legal prescription drugs and illegal drugs, so legal or illegal makes no difference to an addict. Anything that would get him high. Last time I saw him he looked like he had one foot in the grave. His mother has had to live with the pain of watching him destroy himself slowly over the years. Nothing you say will ever take away her pain.

And nothing you did or wanted to do made any difference at all did it? All you did was ruin his life even more than the drugs, you took his freedom away, forced him into torturous heroin withdrawal time after time, when all you should have done was be his friend, make the drug and the conditions under which he used it as safe as possible, and left him alone to destroy himself if that's what he chose to do.

Heroin addicts when left alone may not meet your standards but they can and do function, manage to work and exist and never hurt anyone else. Most got involved with heroin either through an addiction to morphine through a medical treatment or through experimentation without full knowledge of the risk and consequences. The cruelty of the very notion of putting a heroin addict is prison or forcing them against their will into a withdrawal program they won't stay on to stay out of prison makes me want to puke.

Anyone who wants to destroy themselves is free to do so.
But, they will not get my assistance to do it, (I'm not an enabler) and they don't need my approval to do it.
Their on their own.
Everyone makes their own choices in life.
So don't try to blame me for what others do to themselves.

Originally Posted by JohnDoe2

Anyone who wants to destroy themselves is free to do so.
But, they will not get my assistance to do it, (I'm not an enabler) and they don't need my approval to do it.
Their on their own.
Everyone makes their own choices in life.
So don't try to blame me for what other do to themselves.

I don't know anyone who put themselves in jail for non-violent drug charges. The government did that by the very laws you claim you support and then asked me and 250 million other Americans to pay for it. All the while the borders are wide open, drugs and people pouring in, and then the government turned around and said, oh, lets legalize the people so we can keep the borders open legally instead of saying oh, lets legalize the drugs, so we can secure our borders permanently.

I realize legalizing drugs is a controversial issue, and I don't expect everyone to see the wisdom of it overnight. But people who have studied this in far more depth than I like Walter Cronkite and Milton Friedman and thousands of drug enforcement officers and judges have, and they believe and I agree that legalization with regulation of course is the best solution for the people who choose to use as well as the families who care about them.

So we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one, JohnDoe2.

Judy wrote:

But people who have studied this in far more depth than I like Walter Cronkite and Milton Friedman and thousands of drug enforcement officers and judges have, and they believe and I agree that legalization with regulation of course is the best solution for the people who choose to use as well as the families who care about them.

I imagine there are just as many folks that would disagree, including judges and drug enforcement officers.

Originally Posted by MW

Judy wrote:

But people who have studied this in far more depth than I like Walter Cronkite and Milton Friedman and thousands of drug enforcement officers and judges have, and they believe and I agree that legalization with regulation of course is the best solution for the people who choose to use as well as the families who care about them.

I imagine there are just as many folks that would disagree, including judges and drug enforcement officers.

Could be, I really don't know. Maybe you could name some? In the meantime, I have Harvard and 500 economists saying legalize marijuana:

http://www.forbes.com/2005/06/02/cz_qh_0602pot.html

Milton Friedman: Legalize It!
Quentin Hardy, 06.02.05, 12:01 AM ET

SAN FRANCISCO, CA - A founding father of the Reagan Revolution has put his John Hancock on a pro-pot report.

Milton Friedman leads a list of more than 500 economists from around the U.S. who today will publicly endorse a Harvard University economist's report on the costs of marijuana prohibition and the potential revenue gains from the U.S. government instead legalizing it and taxing its sale. Ending prohibition enforcement would save $7.7 billion in combined state and federal spending, the report says, while taxation would yield up to $6.2 billion a year.

The report, "The Budgetary Implications of Marijuana Prohibition," (available at www.prohibitioncosts.org) was written by Jeffrey A. Miron, a professor at Harvard , and largely paid for by the Marijuana Policy Project (MPP), a Washington, D.C., group advocating the review and liberalization of marijuana laws.

At times the report uses some debatable assumptions: For instance, Miron assumes a single figure for every type of arrest, for example, but the average pot bust is likely cheaper than bringing in a murder or kidnapping suspect. Friedman and other economists, however, say the overall work is some of the best yet done on the costs of the war on marijuana.

At 92, Friedman is revered as one of the great champions of free-market capitalism during the years of U.S. rivalry with Communism. He is also passionate about the need to legalize marijuana, among other drugs, for both financial and moral reasons.

"There is no logical basis for the prohibition of marijuana," the economist says, "$7.7 billion is a lot of money, but that is one of the lesser evils. Our failure to successfully enforce these laws is responsible for the deaths of thousands of people in Colombia. I haven't even included the harm to young people. It's absolutely disgraceful to think of picking up a 22-year-old for smoking pot. More disgraceful is the denial of marijuana for medical purposes."

Securing the signatures of Friedman, along with economists from Cornell, Stanford and Yale universities, among others, is a coup for the MPP, a group largely interested in widening and publicizing debate over the usefulness of laws against pot.

If the laws change, large beneficiaries might include large agricultural groups like Archer Daniels Midland (nyse: ADM - news - people ) and ConAgra Foods (nyse: CAG - news - people ) as potential growers or distributors and liquor businesses like Constellation Brands (nyse: STZ - news - people ) and Allied Domecq (nyse: AED - news - people ), which understand the distribution of intoxicants. Surprisingly, Home Depot (nyse: HD - news - people ) and other home gardening centers would not particularly benefit, according to the report, which projects that few people would grow their own marijuana, the same way few people distill whiskey at home. Canada's large-scale domestic marijuana growing industry (see "Inside Dope") suggests otherwise, however.

The report will likely not sway all minds. The White House Office of Drug Control Policy recently published an analysis of marijuana incarceration that states that "most people in prison for marijuana are violent criminals, repeat offenders, traffickers or all of the above." The office declined to comment on the marijuana economics study, however, without first analyzing the study's methodology.

Friedman's advocacy on the issue is limited--the nonagenarian prefers to write these days on the need for school choice, calling U.S. literacy levels "absolutely criminal...only sustained because of the power of the teachers' unions." Yet his thinking on legalizing drugs extends well past any MPP debate or the kind of liberalization favored by most advocates.

"I've long been in favor of legalizing all drugs," he says, but not because of the standard libertarian arguments for unrestricted personal freedom. "Look at the factual consequences: The harm done and the corruption created by these laws...the costs are one of the lesser evils."

Not that a man of his years expects reason to triumph. Any added revenues from taxing legal marijuana would almost certainly be more than spent, by this or any other Congress.

"Deficits are the only thing that keeps this Congress from spending more" says Friedman. "Republicans are no different from Democrats. Spending is the easiest way to buy votes." A sober assessment indeed.

Letting foreign cartels supply our country with drugs virtually unimpeded while sending Black Americans to jail for smoking a joint is just wrong on every level.

But there may well be drug enforcement officers and judges who support this policy. I mean ... SOMEONE is sending Black Americans to prison at 7 times the rate of whites. I think that's the drug enforcement officers who arrest them, the District Attorneys who prosecute them, and the Judges who sentence them, all of whom are paid to do so.

Right?