What costs more?

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

As I say, once again, illegal immigration IS a problem for this country in many ways. Congress should have long ago started setting annual quotas as to what they considered sustainable and gone about setting up the systems and people to process and handle that.

It still pales compared to what Iraq has cost us.

This is where the net gain/loss question is valid (like my responses to you above you didn't answer).

Iraq's net gain is incalculable, illegal aliens net loss is also too high to comprehend. Yes, Iraq has serious negative connotations with it, but I see virtually no positives for someone illegally being in my country, taking jobs from my fellow citizens, and sending that money away. ANY common sense look at that would see there is only net negative.

To me, legalizing drugs would, over night, wipe out 80% of the violent crime in this nation not to mention heal problems on the border.

Do these drugs stop causing the medical issues, the absentee issues with work environments (not to mention the work related injuries!), the security issues, etc., once they become legal? Do they stop being addictive once they become legal?

If the answer to either of these questions is no, legalizing drugs would simply be irresponsible.

Do you want your daughter to be able to go pick up a jar of heroin off the CVS shelf, next to the aspirin? Or, do you mean to only legalize some drugs? If that's the case, we've already done that.

I can see sending military units to the borders to patrol as a post boot camp first station for many MOS's. That would keep rotating new people in and do the job.

I can, too. We could even set up a section of the nation's defense just for that purpose, call them "Border Patrol" or something like that......

[SamSpade]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

To me, legalizing drugs would, over night, wipe out 80% of the violent crime in this nation not to mention heal problems on the border.

Right, because violent criminals who peddle drugs would all lose their source of income. They'd have to give up their thuggish ways and become respectable citizens with jobs.



And why not? It works so very well in parts of the world where drug use is widespread and/or legal.

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by This_person

If they're paying income taxes, doesn't that mean they're either legal immigrants with taxpayer ID numbers, or they're screwing up someone else's lives by having a stolen or invalid SSN? Sounds like a net negative if they're using bad numbers, or a non-issue if they have a valid number, or not happening if they're neither of these categories. So what? It's still net dollars to the treasury


How much is the life worth of the incalculable number of people not killed in further terror acts because one of our worst enemies is now an ally? I find it embarrassing that people are STILL tilting at that windmill. Iraq was a threat to our national security because of oil. Iraq was not a player in international terror. They just weren't. Or, the potential that democratic concepts will win out in the region, and they'll take care of Iran all on their own?Which has what, exactly, to do with illegal aliens or the WOT?Given that they all talked about it (according to their stories - everybody knew and was being blocked by everybody else - who also knew and was being blocked by everybody else - and tried to fix it), I would say Iraq had absolutely zero to do with the economic bubble and subsequent collapse of financial institutions. Wouldn't you? I have said, repeatedly, that Bush failed the US because he was so occupied with Iraq. It consumed his time, his effrots, his energy and his political capitalAnd, we have the negative and positive results of both to deal with.



We should deal with them both. As for Iraq, we have a constantly improving trend. How about the trend and plan for dealing with the illegal aliens?

The Iraq trend is an order of magnitude below zero that may well be trending towards, if nothing else, zero. This presumes you do not take into account the influence and money Iran has gained in the bargain.

The illegals trend is clearly towards the positive. Many have left the country. Border security is better. However, how many have left homes and mortgages behind? How many have walked away from car payments?

As I say, given a choice, I'd prefer to deal with the illegals problem rather than the tar baby of Iraq.

[SamSpade]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

As I say, once again, illegal immigration IS a problem for this country in many ways. Congress should have long ago started setting annual quotas as to what they considered sustainable and gone about setting up the systems and people to process and handle that. .

I'm guessing you HAVE seen the Numbers USA video. It largely deals with the mess we've created just by increasing the numbers based on not controlling the LEGAL immigration. We did have figures for sustainable growth. They just got tossed about 40 years ago.

Adding IN the swarm of illegals, and what you have is the country slowly becoming a Third World nation. It just can't support new people at that rate.

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by SamSpade

Right, because violent criminals who peddle drugs would all lose their source of income. They'd have to give up their thuggish ways and become respectable citizens with jobs.



And why not? It works so very well in parts of the world where drug use is widespread and/or legal.

You do this for entertainment, right?

Prohibition showed us all we need to know, in the land of the free and the home of the brave, what happens when you outlaw something people want; organized crime, corruption and violence.

Up until then, crime was about prostitution and gambling and was nowhere near as violent or as corrupting as alcohol became. Until we repealed prohibition.

If you're happy with the massive amount of corruption throughout our criminal justice system fueled by drug money along with the violence and the expense of jail for people who want to use drugs, by all means.

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by SamSpade

I'm guessing you HAVE seen the Numbers USA video. It largely deals with the mess we've created just by increasing the numbers based on not controlling the LEGAL immigration. We did have figures for sustainable growth. They just got tossed about 40 years ago.

Adding IN the swarm of illegals, and what you have is the country slowly becoming a Third World nation. It just can't support new people at that rate.

Yes, I've seen it and you're not going to get an argument out of me; this is both parties failing the nation, as a whole.

We MUST get ahold of our own borders and immigrant population growth.

[SamSpade]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

Prohibition showed us all we need to know, in the land of the free and the home of the brave, what happens when you outlaw something people want; organized crime, corruption and violence.

Up until then, crime was about prostitution and gambling and was nowhere near as violent or as corrupting as alcohol became. Until we repealed prohibition.

And then what? All of organized crime just threw their hands in the air and said "the jig's up! we gotta go back and work REAL jobs"? Of course not. They did something else, and were every bit as violent. I don't see gangs in the major cities stopping their ways and going to work at fast food because the drug money won't pay as well. And I sure don't think that easy access to narcotics will help the population. We have people ruining their lives over easy access to *prescription* drugs. Make it as accessible as candy and then what? I can't WAIT to see my kid bringing home drugs from pre-school.

As far as the discussion about drugs, I have to say that suggesting that violent crime will go away if you legalize drugs is easily the stupidest argument I hear. Of course it won't. They'll do something else. Hell, you'll create a whole population of easy targets to roll.

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by SamSpade

And then what? All of organized crime just threw their hands in the air and said "the jig's up! we gotta go back and work REAL jobs"? Of course not. They did something else, and were every bit as violent. I don't see gangs in the major cities stopping their ways and going to work at fast food because the drug money won't pay as well. And I sure don't think that easy access to narcotics will help the population. We have people ruining their lives over easy access to *prescription* drugs. Make it as accessible as candy and then what? I can't WAIT to see my kid bringing home drugs from pre-school.

As far as the discussion about drugs, I have to say that suggesting that violent crime will go away if you legalize drugs is easily the stupidest argument I hear. Of course it won't. They'll do something else. Hell, you'll create a whole population of easy targets to roll.

Your entire argument is predicated on one point; That the violence and corruption came first. If you think that is true, if you think the massive violence and huge dollars directly associated with the growth of crack would have happened without it, we can't have much of a conversation.

To me, your premise is totally wrong. The violence and money and corruption erupted AFTER the drugs. I can't think of any social ill that is as simply obvious.

We have a horrific alcohol problem in the US yet we have none of the violence or corruption associated with prohibition because alcohol is cheap and it's cheap because it is legal.

I can't believe we're debating this.

[SamSpade]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

Your entire argument is predicated on one point; That the violence and corruption came first.

That's correct. Your own post confirm it. Gambling, prostitution - racketeering, gun-running. How far back do you want to go?

The rise of crime under Prohibition was just sheer opportunism, as it was with the crack explosion. You are correct that it expanded under those conditions. What DIDN'T happen, was for it to END, when it ended, which is your premise.

You don't take a billion dollar industry and shut it down with a few laws, and expect the kind of person who's lived like a king on the continued misery of others and has made a lifestyle predicated on fear - to just give up.

And that's just dealing with the lunacy of "we'd end all this fighting if we just made it legal". The only folks I ever come face to face with who say that are people who clearly do it themselves. No one who's ever cradled a dying addict in their hands thinks it's a cool idea. No one who's ever dealt with CHILDREN addicted to drugs thinks it would be a good idea.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

You do this for entertainment, right?

Prohibition showed us all we need to know, in the land of the free and the home of the brave, what happens when you outlaw something people want; organized crime, corruption and violence.

Up until then, crime was about prostitution and gambling and was nowhere near as violent or as corrupting as alcohol became. Until we repealed prohibition.

If you're happy with the massive amount of corruption throughout our criminal justice system fueled by drug money along with the violence and the expense of jail for people who want to use drugs, by all means.

I agree we learned nothing from Prohibition. We go after the dealers, and treat the users like poor victims now, just like we did then.


Severe punishment for users is the only solution. Make it not worth starting, and demand will be so low it won't be worth selling, either. Get caught with a doobie - or even one roach - and you have six weeks of hard labor or severe fines and community service time.

We're going after drugs the same way for decades, and it doesn't make sense nor will it ever work. However, the drugs are STILL just as addictive and just as lethal to our society and economy, so drug use is STILL not a reasonable option. Go after the users instead of the pushers, and make it HURT, and the sober people who haven't yet tried it probably will think harder about trying it.