What costs more?

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

So what? It's still net dollars to the treasury

If and only if they've committed a second crime - identity theft. Two crimes don't make a right, just because it might provide a pittance to the treasury. They're still an overall drain monetarily, because someone has to investigate and prosecute the crimes

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.

Then, why did known terrorists live there, state sponsored?

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 capital

That you've said it doesn't make it any more true. He brought it up, repeatedly, and Congress didn't do anything about it - even though many in Congress also brought it up, and submitted plans to combat the problem. It wasn't that they were preoccupied, it was that they were incompetent.

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.

This is predicated on the idea that a country that had WMD's (they used 'em on themselves and Iran, so we know they had 'em) and invaded another country for oil, and virtually daily was shooting at American and Coalition planes, charging at ships, etc., was not a threat. That idea holds no water.

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

And from homes, and from cars, that are now available cheap!

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

This is because you view Iraq as MSNBC, or Pelosi, or Reid (but, I repeat myself) would have you view it instead of objectively.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by SamSpade

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.

That's because once it's legal, the medical and social problems, the addictive qualities of the drugs, goes away with the crime.......

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Nucklesack

2ndA does it with :

The actual figure is 30% of Federal Prison inmates are Foreign Born, the 30% distinction doesnt define Illegal Aliens verses Legal ones. 2ndA is the one who feels all foreigners are illegal.

Here is the Bureau of Prisons figures


Notice there isnt a distinction about Legal or Illegal? Up to a third of the U.S. federal prison population is composed of non-citizens, according to Federal Bureau of Prisons statistics - but not all non-citizen prison inmates are illegal aliens.

When you use faulty "Facts", your entire premise becomes suspect.

Just spitballing here, but is it possible that other studies have been done, and since the "Citizenship" status of the BOP doesn't include "legal or illegal" it really does absolutely nothing to establish the validity of the percentage?

Again, I don't have the study, I'm just spitballing here.

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by This_person

That's because once it's legal, the medical and social problems, the addictive qualities of the drugs, goes away with the crime.......

Nope. But the violence and corruption do.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

Nope. But the violence and corruption do.

Can you demonstrate where that's ever been true? Did the violence and corruption of organized crime stop when prohibition was repealed?


And, either way, if those horrible results would still exist, doesn't that necessitate a different method of keeping the drugs illegal, not creating the bad results on a larger - and legal - scale?

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Nucklesack

Yeah, there have been some and the figure is closer to 15%. Doesnt matter it could be 95%, the point was 2ndA equeates all foreigners to Illegal Aliens

I thought the point was that they make up a significant percentage of our prison system, costing us insane amounts of money to investigate, try, and punish them for the crimes that didn't need to be committed in the first place (if they weren't here).

Does 15% or 30% really matter, when looked at from the perspective of the victims that probably would not have been victims, and from the point of view of the taxpayer providing for these people's lives to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars per year - potentially making it harder to rehabilitate Americans because of the additional burden on the system? (note, I said "harder to", not stops or prohibits or anything like that)

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by This_person

Can you demonstrate where that's ever been true? Did the violence and corruption of organized crime stop when prohibition was repealed? Stop? No, but can you name me the 'Al Capone' of the late 30's, the 1940's, the 1950's? Do you think it is simply a coincidence that crime and violence only increased as hard drug use and it's price and efforts to stop it increased in the 70's onward?


And, either way, if those horrible results would still exist, doesn't that necessitate a different method of keeping the drugs illegal, not creating the bad results on a larger - and legal - scale?

Only in the minds of people who think it is the job of society to not only tell you what you can and can't ingest but enforce it vigorously.

What does it feel like to be on the same side of this issue as the street thugs, drug king pins, corrupt lawyers, judges, cops and politicians who really, REALLY don't want drugs legalized?

[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. Ideally, you will teach him drugs are bad for him as is oven cleaner, sniffing glue and all sorts of other things

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.

The violence is a simple response to the money to be made. Our founders fought one another over mere taxes on whiskey. They'd laugh in our faces that we try to tell one another what we can and can't consume. That's not what they broke from a monarchy to achieve.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

Only in the minds of people who think it is the job of society to not only tell you what you can and can't ingest but enforce it vigorously.

I think the rules are there to protect others, not the user.

What does it feel like to be on the same side of this issue as the street thugs, drug king pins, corrupt lawyers, judges, cops and politicians who really, REALLY don't want drugs legalized?

Think about why the thugs, king pins, and corrupt lawyers want it to stay illegal..... Money! Make it legal, and you make them pointless (same as my idea to go after the users instead of dealers)

Now, why do judges, cops, and politicians want it to stay illegal? It's a horrible thing! It costs gobs of lives, productivity, health, safety of others (not including the crime to obtain it - just being on it). There's not a single thing of value gained, and so much lost.

I'm good being on the correct side.

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by This_person

Think about why the thugs, king pins, and corrupt lawyers want it to stay illegal..... Money! Make it legal, and you make them pointless (same as my idea to go after the users instead of dealers) You don't say?


Now, why do judges, cops, and politicians want it to stay illegal? It's a horrible thing! It costs gobs of lives, productivity, health, safety of others (not including the crime to obtain it - just being on it). There's not a single thing of value gained, and so much lost. Good things it's illegal so those terrible things don't happen!

I'm good being on the correct side.

You're on the totalitarian side. I don't consider that 'good'.