The Wall

[JKDS]

"Mexican Transnational Criminal Organizations (TCOs) remain the greatest criminal drug threat to the United States. No other group is currently positioned to challenge them." - Unclassified DEA Drug Threat Assessment, 2016

Mexican TCOs maintain influence in large parts of Mexico for the cultivation, production, importation, and transportation of illicit drugs. They then control lucrative smuggling corridors across the United States Southwest Border. (SWB). Once across, they are delivered to consumer markets everywhere within the United States.

Gangs are up according to federal, state, and local law enforcement reports. Law enforcement also have connected local gangs to mexican TCO drug sources of supply.

What follows is the threat from each major drug:
-Controlled Prescription (like xanax, oxycodone): the number of deaths attributed to these drugs have outpaced heroin and cocaine combined. ~52 american deaths per day.
-Heroin: deaths continue to be on the rise. There are large poppy farms in Mexico, creating high-purity and low cost heroin to market into the united states. about 10,000 died in 2014 due to heroin overdoses
-Fentanyl: This drug is incredibly dangerous to law enforcement, is manufactured in china or mexico, and then smuggled into the united states. Merely touching a few grains of it could cause a fatal overdose. The threat is something law enforcement takes incredibly seriously.
Meth: Most of US meth is produced in Mexico, and smuggled across the SWB. Seizures of domestic meth labs is down, likely due to the large availability of it coming from Mexican TCOs.
-Cocaine: on the rise, mostly from colombia.
-Marijuana: Tons come from Mexico, but its also made domestically.

Smuggling across the border occurs in a variety of ways. The vast majority occurs over land. The most common way is smuggled within vehicles in hidden compartments. Tunnels are also used, however, and primarily smuggle literal tons of marijuana. As of March, 2016, 225 tunnels were discovered since 1990. 224 of those tunnels were discovered on the SWB, with 185 of them crossing into the US. They are also transported on commercial trains and passenger buses. To a small extent, speedboats off the coast of california are also used On the other hand, traditional methods like using "backpackers" to cross the desert are very common.

The above information was all ripped directly from the DEA threat assessment of 2016. -https://www.dea.gov/resource-center/2016%20NDTA%20Summary.pdf

BTW, overdoses are responsible for 49,714 American deaths in 2014. Motor vehicle accidents accounted for 35,398. Not to mention the number of deaths attributed to cartel or gang violence resulting from the drug trade. -http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Causes_of_Death

------------------------------------------------------

TLDR: Drugs are bad, mkay. This post doesnt even address other threats caused by our open border. Illegals do commit crimes. By definition, they've already committed one. But moreover, its a hard life for people who arent supposed to be here. To solve some of those hard life problems, crimes do occur. Not to mention threats caused by cartel members or gangs. The threat is real.

------------------------------------------------------

Alright, so lets get to the point. Something needs to be done. Wall?

Pros:
- Stops backpackers cold (Do i need to address the "ladder" argument?)
- More men (trump has said this) means more surveillance. The more people we have guarding, the fewer smuggling vehicles will get by us.

Cons
- Its a wall, and a blight upon America
- Its a wall
- Its expensive.
- Does it even stop tunnels?

So, yay or nay? If nay, why? Political reasons (ew, walls are unamerican)? Economic reasons? Or something else?

[Poopadoop]

The drug argument is probably the worst one -don't know if you purposely chose it for that reason. First, how many drugs get walked across as opposed to flown or smuggled or shipped by boat? Second, so the price of drugs goes up a fraction, so what? Third, not all your drugs come from Mexico. I'm sure Trump uses the drug argument solely 'cause it's the most fear-inducing; if he could say terrorists were coming over the border with poison-tipped nukes he would.

But ok, stopping criminals in general is a good reason. Not clear how many it would stop and if that's worth the cost (now closer to $15-20b so they say). More men guarding the wall also costs more money.

Don't believe the world would care much if you had a wall or not - it's your country. You already look kinda silly to us with your crazy orange president, sorry to be blunt.

[JKDS]

The amount of drugs crossing the SWB is incredible. With it comes an immense amount of crime. Meth heads are particularly notorious for their actions. YouTube will provide tons of examples. The drug doesn't only effect our community in creating meth heads though, it also provides funding to gangs and the cartel. Nor only wanna be gangs, but also the famous and incredibly dangerous ones. White supremacists. Nuestra familia. Bloods and crips. Cut their funding, cut their power.

Will other ways turn up? Sure. But I'd rather show em a locked door than an open window.

As far as economics, I can't comment. I can't even fathom what 20billion even means in comparison to the US budget.

[JKDS]

More cons:
- the wall doesn't stop catapults or drone deliveries (yes, these are real methods)
-we do have border towns. Idk the logistics for tackling this
-rugged terrain will make it difficult to build in many areas

[BananaStand]

Seems to me that if I were a Mexican, and things weren't going so well for me, I'd be looking to move. And if someone told me that there was a country that could offer me work, and access to social welfare programs, I'd be very interested in going there. And then if you told me that country was peppered with cities where I could have 'sanctuary' from deportation, I'd be packing my bags.

A wall isn't gonna stop me. I'll get over by catapult if I have to.

I'm not against the motivations that the administration has for building a wall, I just think it's an ineffective solution.

If you really want to stop illegal immigration, you need to destroy the underground economy that supports these people. There needs to be horrendous penalties for companies that employ these people. We can't let illegal immigrants have driver's licenses, or get access to free services that most Americans pay for themselves. There needs to be no motivation for an illegal immigrant to come here.

If we acheive that, there should be no reason for an 'innocent' person to be dashing across a the desert in secret. Once we've fixed things on our side of the border, we can be sure that whoever is out there, is either a smuggler or terrorist. And at that point, we can use drones to simply launch hell-fire missiles at anything that moves. No wall necessary.

[Savy]

Does really cheap labour not create big pluses for those areas surrounding the border at certain times of year?

Does the drug trade not basically pay for itself to get through no matter what the barriers are?

It strikes me as a very ineffective way ($ terms) to solve problems defined by a government some of which aren't even problems.

[BananaStand]

Does really cheap labour not create big pluses for those areas surrounding the border at certain times of year?

How would it? If an illegal immigrant works illegally (for cheap), then that [criminal] business experiences increased profits. Where do those profits go? Certainly not to the employees....otherwise it wouldn't be 'cheap labor'. And when the employees are sending large amounts of their money back to Mexico, the jobs don't benefit the economy as much as "legal" workers would.

Does the drug trade not basically pay for itself to get through no matter what the barriers are?

No security is absolute. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try. Also, I don't think the drug trade really cares where their money comes from. So the drugs will follow the path of least resistance. If it's cheaper and less risky to smuggle drugs to, say for example, France instead of America, then French folks are gonna be gettin' high.

America has the disadvantage of proximity. It's not like there is an ocean between Mexico and the US. So it only follows that America's response to border security be a stronger one than, say for example, France. Otherwise, we're just creating that path of least resistance....right into America.

There's a reason it's so hard to get cocaine in Saudi Arabia.

[Savy]

How would it? If an illegal immigrant works illegally (for cheap), then that [criminal] business experiences increased profits. Where do those profits go? Certainly not to the employees....otherwise it wouldn't be 'cheap labor'. And when the employees are sending large amounts of their money back to Mexico, the jobs don't benefit the economy as much as "legal" workers would.

So you're for huge hikes in workers rights such as health benefits, minimum wage, etc?

No security is absolute. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try. Also, I don't think the drug trade really cares where their money comes from. So the drugs will follow the path of least resistance. If it's cheaper and less risky to smuggle drugs to, say for example, France instead of America, then French folks are gonna be gettin' high.

America has the disadvantage of proximity. It's not like there is an ocean between Mexico and the US. So it only follows that America's response to border security be a stronger one than, say for example, France. Otherwise, we're just creating that path of least resistance....right into America.

This is so irrelevant to what I said. The point was exactly about $ spent/reward of that. Maybe you healthcare shouldn't be so fucked that people can go across the border and get much cheaper service & prescription drugs at a fraction of the price. Also you realise France is basically part of mainland Europe, it's connected very liberally to most places.

There's a reason it's so hard to get cocaine in Saudi Arabia.

Actually knowing people who spend time in these places I can tell you that it isn't. Maybe in the same way if you went to anywhere in the world you might find it hard to get coke with no connections.

[BananaStand]

So you're for huge hikes in workers rights such as health benefits, minimum wage, etc?

I definitely did not say that. I'm merely refuting your claim that cheap labor is a boon to border economies. Redistribution doesn't seem like much of a benefit either.

Actually knowing people who spend time in these places I can tell you that it isn't. Maybe in the same way if you went to anywhere in the world you might find it hard to get coke with no connections.

Seriously, just stop. Do you know what the penalty is for drug possession in Saudi Arabia? Are you telling me that it's not a deterrent at all?

[MadMojoMonkey]

Seems to me that if I were a Mexican, and things weren't going so well for me, I'd be looking to move. And if someone told me that there was a country that could offer me work, and access to social welfare programs, I'd be very interested in going there. And then if you told me that country was peppered with cities where I could have 'sanctuary' from deportation, I'd be packing my bags.

Is this only true if you're a Mexican?

'Cause otherwise... there are a whole slew of countries which meet these criteria in relation to the USA.
Canada is even just one border crossing away.


Oh yeah... more of the, "If everyone would just do like I suppose I would do in their shoes..."

[BananaStand]

Is this only true if you're a Mexican?

This is a thread about the proposed Wall along the southern US border. Remind me again, which country is on the other side of that border?

'Cause otherwise... there are a whole slew of countries which meet these criteria in relation to the USA.
Canada is even just one border crossing away.

None of that 'slew' of countries shares a border with the US on which a wall could be erected, save Canada. If Canada ever turns into a cesspool of drugs, crime, poverty, and hopelessly corrupt government, then we may want to consider a wall along the northern border as well. Until then though, one problem at a time.

Oh yeah... more of the, "If everyone would just do like I suppose I would do in their shoes..."

I merely posed a hypothetical using common colloquial phrasing. You're being a real dick right now. I wish you would stop.

[MadMojoMonkey]

This is a thread about the proposed Wall along the southern US border. Remind me again, which country is on the other side of that border?

You said, "If I was a Mexican, I would..."
I asked the question because you are not a Mexican, but those benefits you claim are enticing Mexicans across the border are equally true w.r.t. the US if you cross Canada's border. They have more free public services than the USA, and they have loads of cities where no one is looking for "illegal Americans."

So my question is:
If those things you said are actually true, then why haven't you moved to Canada?

This is a thread about the proposed Wall along the southern US border. Remind me again, which country is on the other side of that border?

I think you missed my point. Do you see what I'm asking, now?

None of that 'slew' of countries shares a border with the US on which a wall could be erected, save Canada. If Canada ever turns into a cesspool of drugs, crime, poverty, and hopelessly corrupt government, then we may want to consider a wall along the northern border as well. Until then though, one problem at a time..

No, you got me wrong. I'm not saying that we need a wall on the Canadian border because they are itching to come to America where they can pay out of pocket for their health care.

I'm asking if those things which you cited as so enticing to Mexicans are equally enticing to you. The increase in benefits and lack of scrutiny over your presence would be ~ equal if not more extreme. After all, your skin is already the same color as most Canadians and you already speak the same language. Blending in with the locals would be easier.

I merely posed a hypothetical using common colloquial phrasing. You're being a real dick right now. I wish you would stop.

I've never called you a name or passed my judgement on you.

If you think the way I understand your deeper motivations is incorrect, then please correct me. I'm only trying to understand you.

To wit: You said my perspective on you was wrong, and I'm showing you the evidence which motivates my understanding.

[BananaStand]

So my question is:
If those things you said are actually true, then why haven't you moved to Canada?

Winter is 10 months long, and their strippers are flat out disgusting.

More seriously, it's because the economic opportunities America affords to someone like me who is equipped to succeed in a capitalist meritocracy. Socialism doesn't suit me.

I'm asking if those things which you cited as so enticing to Mexicans are equally enticing to you. The increase in benefits and lack of scrutiny over your presence would be ~ equal if not more extreme. After all, your skin is already the same color as most Canadians and you already speak the same language. Blending in with the locals would be easier.

Easier still as I actually hold dual citizenship with Canada. But your premise is wrong. Those enticing things are NOT equally enticing to me. I guess I could have phrased my statement better and said "If I was a poor mexican stuck in a corrupt country with little opportunity...."

Despite the crime and corruption, Mexico isn't exactly a 3rd world country. They have businesses, and CEO's, and accountants, and lawyers, all of whom are pretty happy right where they are. We're not talking about them. We're talking about people who are so disadvantaged that they are willing to take the risk of illegal immigration. A wall is just another obstacle. It's not a barrier.

[Savy]

I'd also argue the very negative framing of immigration creates a large problem that doesn't and shouldn't be there.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I'm anti-wall mostly for the total lack of historical precedent for any wall accomplishing its goal.

Did Great Wall of China keep the Mongols out? Nope. Mongol hordes killed ~90% of all Chinese people.

Did Berlin wall keep Germany divided? Nope. People were still getting across, and when it came down, there was much rejoicing.

***
The notion that we could post sentries on the wall along the entire US-Mexico border 24/7 is a monumental effort of labor which is not remotely practical.

***
Fixing the laws to decriminalize what is clearly non-destructive (and all-too-common) human behavior is a great first step to solving this problem.

Is the problem that drugs are coming across the border, or that Americans want drugs that are not available here?
I.e. is the real problem that drug-users are not willing to vote on drug-related issues for some reason?

I'd be much more in favor of legal, regulated drugs ... tested and sold by the gov't for high tax rates... and criminalizing the actual thefts and other BS as it comes. I don't see why someone wanting to be inebriated on something besides alcohol is so bad while someone wanting to be inebriated on alcohol is OK.

[BananaStand]

Is the problem that drugs are coming across the border, or that Americans want drugs that are not available here?
I.e. is the real problem that drug-users are not willing to vote on drug-related issues for some reason?

I'd be much more in favor of legal, regulated drugs ... tested and sold by the gov't for high tax rates... and criminalizing the actual thefts and other BS as it comes. I don't see why someone wanting to be inebriated on something besides alcohol is so bad while someone wanting to be inebriated on alcohol is OK.

Surely you'd agree there is a limit though? Even if we stipulate that your plan works for pot, what about harder drugs?

the drug business is exploitative. People turn to drugs typically during a weak-moment in their lives, and if they succumb, they often end up addicted for life. The consequences of drug use are so destructive, that I don't think any amount of tax revenue could justify legalizing things like cocaine, heroin, or meth.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Surely you'd agree there is a limit though? Even if we stipulate that your plan works for pot, what about harder drugs?

IDK. I don't think I see a limit... and stop calling me Shirley.


It's a difficult thing to tackle.
On the one hand, street drugs are random quality and potentially more dangerous to public health than the base drug. So setting up a system which prevents deaths and tax-payer hospital costs due to drugs being laced with random chemicals would potentially be less costly than criminalizing and incarcerating.

(It's hard to imagine anything more costly than criminalizing and incarcerating, really. I'd need to see some excellent numbers to sway me on that.)

On the other hand... I don't like the idea that my tax money is going to let some junky sit in a room getting high. Whether or not that's a choice I'd ever make... I'm not really comfortable with that junky asking me for money, and I'm not really comfortable with the gov't telling me that junkies need their drugs.

However, nothing about this is comfortable, and the least expensive solution is best. If a slightly less than optimal solution can be found that helps more junkies become ex-junkies, then I think that adds dignity to the society, and I'm more comfortable with that.

the drug business is exploitative. People turn to drugs typically during a weak-moment in their lives, and if they succumb, they often end up addicted for life. The consequences of drug use are so destructive, that I don't think any amount of tax revenue could justify legalizing things like cocaine, heroin, or meth.

It's not always about increasing the good. It's sometimes about decreasing the bad.

I'm not swayed by the 'exploitative' argument. Casinos are legal in the states. Candy is sold at every gas station. The notion that a business is bad 'cause exploitation is not apt.

I agree that the consequences of drug use are destructive. What I wonder is whether or not the current policy is doing more harm than good. Criminalizing non-violent, self-destructive behavior seems not good for families.
The fact is that drugs are ugly. I'm not saying that the gov't policy should in any way glorify drugs. I'm saying that making them clean and legally regulated may help some people. Making other services available to people who are at their wits' end and ready to give up on (at least a corner) of life seems much better than waiting until they're over the edge and punishing them for falling.

[Savy]

It only benefits mexican workers.

[Savy]

Also Mexico isn't the only place that creates illegal drugs. I'd agree Mexico trying to get into the saudi drug game would be completely mental because the middle east is great at growing the requisite crops and geography is a thing.

[JKDS]

Let me ask the question another way.

Should something be done to curb the large amounts of illegal drugs being imported into the United States?

[Savy]

Let me ask the question another way.

Should something be done to curb the large amounts of illegal drugs being imported into the United States?

Is it a/the problem? It always boils down to $ return when you're faced with limited money and the cost of this seems retarded when applied to the problem it's meant to solve.

[BananaStand]

Is it a/the problem?

OMFG yes!! There is an ongoing opioid epidemic in the USA right now. It's pretty bad

It always boils down to $ return when you're faced with limited money and the cost of this seems retarded when applied to the problem it's meant to solve.

That only works if you can put a $ value on human life.

[MadMojoMonkey]

OMFG yes!! There is an ongoing opioid epidemic in the USA right now.

This is sad, but true.

C'mon Florida. Regulate, FFS.

That only works if you can put a $ value on human life.

It is also sad, but true that at the federal level, this must be done. Insurance agencies have to do this, too.

It sucks that this must be, but the bare bones is that there is a $ value (to the state) and someone needs to figure it out.

[BananaStand]

It is also sad, but true that at the federal level, this must be done. Insurance agencies have to do this, too.

It sucks that this must be, but the bare bones is that there is a $ value (to the state) and someone needs to figure it out.

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that the government can prioritize which societal afflictions it will treat based on the monetary risk/reward. In other words, you would like the government to recognize that it is more expensive to enforce drug laws than it is to treat drug addicts, and act accordingly.

So....what's the risk/reward....in dollars please....of admitting a Syrian refugee?

[Savy]

That only works if you can put a $ value on human life.

It is very easy to do this & it happens all the time. Hence the insurance industry.

OMFG yes!! There is an ongoing opioid epidemic in the USA right now. It's pretty bad

From what I've seen (and I admit I may be very wrong here) drugs tend not to be the problem when it comes to "drug problems". The opt out always exists, can't get x then do y instead. etc.

[Poopadoop]

Let me ask the question another way.

Should something be done to curb the large amounts of illegal drugs being imported into the United States?

I thought huge amounts of money were already thrown at that problem in the 70s and 80s (or maybe it was 80s and 90s) and all it did was increase the prices, not lower the demand.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Let me ask the question another way.

Should something be done to curb the large amounts of illegal drugs being imported into the United States?

Is this still a question about a wall being asked another way?

At any rate, an unequivocal, "Yes." is my answer.

[Poopadoop]

btw, afaik net migration of Mexicans is Mexico>America, so not sure what the wall is meant to accomplish.

[wufwugy]

Economists have dropped the ball on immigration and trade. Their standard claims are not so much wrong as they are not comprehensive. We're seeing now unaccounted for costs of too much immigration with things like nation disruption, regional productivity disruption, and voter backlash.

The discipline was once about a coherent description of resource allocation regarding all available information. It has become about rationalizing a favored idea. Sad!

[wufwugy]

Illegal aliens and minimum wage are unfair to legal immigrants and American citizens. Many would like to work below minimum wage but can't because they abide by the law will illegal aliens slide under it.

[JKDS]

How much is 20billion? Is that significant to the us gov?

[JKDS]

Job theft I always thought to be a weak reason.

What about the cost of illegal immigrants on healthcare, education, jails, courts, and community services?

For those who think we should legalize the illegal immigrants, isn't that unfair to the thousands who lawfully wait in line to enter legally? My uncle went through the legal process, it's pretty unfair that others can just unlawfully enter, hide from the law, then be given amnesty.

But that argument only matters if you support annual limits on legal immigration, a whole nuther can of worms

[JKDS]

Taxes are a big deal too btw. For towns with high populations of illegal immigrants, police, fire, and other public services get stretched thin. If 100% of the people can call 911, but only 75% pay taxes, the lawful members of society end up eating the cost.

[JKDS]

Or...is the argument that illegals dont pay taxes full of baloney?

[MadMojoMonkey]

I'm sure they're paying sales tax. Not sure how much that covers, from the state's perspective.

I'd heard that they don't take advantage of nearly all public services because A) they don't know what those services are or how to claim them, and B) those services require an ID and social security card to gain benefit from them.

I know it's my opinion, man, but on healthcare and education, I consider those a right I'm willing to bear the burden for. So whatever the burden on those 2 issues, I'm OK with the cost.

Jails and courts? Isn't catching criminals their job?
What?

I addressed public services.

25% of the people in the town are illegal immigrants who aren't paying local town tax? They're still paying sales tax (I assume), but the town's tax system doesn't pull money for those public services through sales tax?
That's a problem, yeah.
Decriminalization of illegal immigrants aside (not my position), there's changing the tax code to reflect this trend, there's calling in the problem to the federal authorities.

[BananaStand]

I'm sure they're paying sales tax. Not sure how much that covers, from the state's perspective..

What if your state doesn't collect sales or income taxes?

[MadMojoMonkey]

What if your state doesn't collect sales or income taxes?

That's a problem, yeah.

.

[Savy]

Surely the reason most of these people are getting hired is that they are fairly fit and healthy and are cracking on with the work. I'm pretty sure they're not getting given time off to go to the doctors. Also correct me if I'm wrong but people actually travel into Mexico for cheap health care (i.e. dental work, perscription drugs) why would Mexicans not do the same?

There are also lots of people who are legal who don't pay taxes, actually claim a lot from the state & are probably the group that uses public services the most. That is somewhat besides the point but definitely refutes the "fairness" claim.

[JKDS]

Surely the reason most of these people are getting hired is that they are fairly fit and healthy and are cracking on with the work. I'm pretty sure they're not getting given time off to go to the doctors. Also correct me if I'm wrong but people actually travel into Mexico for cheap health care (i.e. dental work, perscription drugs) why would Mexicans not do the same?.

Tons go to hospitals, get treatment, then don't pay. Just because you're fit now, that doesn't mean you won't get sick later.

Illegal immigrants also can't just hop back and forth between Mexico and the US. They're illegals. To get here at all, they had to take a life threatening trek through the desert.

[JKDS]

@MMM: about 20% of my paycheck is eaten by the federal and state government. On top of that, I pay sales tax. Illegal immigrants, who get paid under the table, don't get owned by that 20% figure.

What I mean by public services is that police, courts, jails, firefighters, etc art free. They're paid for via taxes. Their workload is also directly tied to population size, and their funding is tied to tax payers.

The more illegals who don't contribute, the greater the tax burden is on lawful tax payers.

The cost of enforcing immigration laws is also directly tied to the ease of getting here.

[MadMojoMonkey]

@MMM: about 20% of my paycheck is eaten by the federal and state government. On top of that, I pay sales tax. Illegal immigrants, who get paid under the table, don't get owned by that 20% figure.

What I mean by public services is that police, courts, jails, firefighters, etc art free. They're paid for via taxes. Their workload is also directly tied to population size, and their funding is tied to tax payers.

The more illegals who don't contribute, the greater the tax burden is on lawful tax payers.

The cost of enforcing immigration laws is also directly tied to the ease of getting here.

I'm in full agreement that there's a problem, here.

As I understand it, that 20% is significant, and while illegal immigrants have access to some services, they do not have access to most services.

Unless you're willing to inject data, here, we can only cite that they pay some taxes, but not all taxes, and that they have access to some public services, but not all.
Whether or not this amounts to a net gain or net loss to the state has not been demonstrated.

[JKDS]

I'm in full agreement that there's a problem, here.

As I understand it, that 20% is significant, and while illegal immigrants have access to some services, they do not have access to most services.

Unless you're willing to inject data, here, we can only cite that they pay some taxes, but not all taxes, and that they have access to some public services, but not all.
Whether or not this amounts to a net gain or net loss to the state has not been demonstrated.

I can understand that. Schools accept children though. Hospitals dont turn people away. Police and firefighters dont question citizenship before responding to a call. A few states tax based on sales tax alone, and illegals certainly pay that. But those which are payed via paycheck require an actual paycheck.

BUT, i'll grant you that some illegals do get paychecks. Either their status goes unknown, or they acquire fake identifications (easier than it sounds).

[JKDS]

@hoppy: Legalize even meth, heroin, and cocaine? That'd certainly impact the cartels, but do we really want more meth heads? People high on, or addicted to, meth are crazy. A huge percentage of crimes, from property crimes to homicides, are caused by meth heads. We might be trading one devil for another here

[CoccoBill]

@hoppy: Legalize even meth, heroin, and cocaine? That'd certainly impact the cartels, but do we really want more meth heads? People high on, or addicted to, meth are crazy. A huge percentage of crimes, from property crimes to homicides, are caused by meth heads. We might be trading one devil for another here

Why would there be more meth heads, would you pick up the habit if they were legal? Do you personally know anyone who would? It's not like them being illegal is stopping any of the current users, I'm not convinced everyone and their mom would immediately start using if they became legal. I'd bet experimenting with them would be less tantalizing for kids, since that would remove much of the mystique surrounding them.

Drugs are expensive because they're illegal, and a big part of the havoc they wreak is due to their legal status. Users are outcast from society, family ties are broken, mere possession can land you in jail. Good luck getting a job as a junkie, so stealing and burglaries become a viable choice, especially when they're probably even penalized less than merely using drugs. Of course many drugs are dangerous and do have seriously fucked up effects on individuals and society, but a lot of these could imo be alleviated by legalization, or even depenalization.

https://mic.com/articles/110344/14-y...ing#.xTvZb2Xss
https://www.ted.com/talks/johann_har...ction_is_wrong

[JKDS]

Why would there be more meth heads, would you pick up the habit if they were legal? Do you personally know anyone who would? It's not like them being illegal is stopping any of the current users, I'm not convinced everyone and their mom would immediately start using if they became legal. I'd bet experimenting with them would be less tantalizing for kids, since that would remove much of the mystique surrounding them.

There would be more meth heads because something previously illegal became legal. Are you suggesting that illegality plays absolutely NO role in deterring behavior? Thats a pretty hard position to maintain.

I am absolutely against kids "experimenting" with heroin, meth, or any other highly addictive, and dangerous drug. Addictive and dangerous is not rhetoric.

Drugs are expensive because they're illegal, and a big part of the havoc they wreak is due to their legal status. Users are outcast from society, family ties are broken, mere possession can land you in jail. Good luck getting a job as a junkie, so stealing and burglaries become a viable choice, especially when they're probably even penalized less than merely using drugs. Of course many drugs are dangerous and do have seriously fucked up effects on individuals and society, but a lot of these could imo be alleviated by legalization, or even depenalization.

https://mic.com/articles/110344/14-y...ing#.xTvZb2Xss
https://www.ted.com/talks/johann_har...ction_is_wrong

Sure. Programs in the US have had good success. Needle exchange programs, for example, tend to reduce ODs and use, in addition to lowering the risk of HIV needle transmission. One reason for this may be that people establish connections with others who can help them through whatever it is theyre going through. If heroin was dirt cheap, you wouldnt need as much money to buy it and you wouldnt necessarily commit property crimes for money.

But this isnt the whole truth. Hanging my hat on just meth for a moment, the crimes are not always monetary based. In fact, due to the damage meth does to the brain, many of the crimes are done because the guy just cant function anymore.

Idk if legal status has anything to do with getting a job though. Certainly prior convictions effect that, but being a junkie alone is enough to make a business owner pick someone else.

[CoccoBill]

There would be more meth heads because something previously illegal became legal. Are you suggesting that illegality plays absolutely NO role in deterring behavior? Thats a pretty hard position to maintain.

No I'm not suggesting that at all, pretty much every policy change has some kind of impact and consequences, often unforeseen. What I do think is that the usage increasing effect of legalization is probably exaggerated, with Portugal and Holland being good evidence for that. In Portugal after legalization all drug use is down several percentage points, drug related crime and deaths are down, rate of HIV infections is down etc.

I am absolutely against kids "experimenting" with heroin, meth, or any other highly addictive, and dangerous drug. Addictive and dangerous is not rhetoric.

I agree completely, drugs can absolutely be addictive and are undeniably dangerous. The causes and mechanisms of addiction however, might be very different to what we're used to believing, as discussed in the Ted talk I linked.

But this isnt the whole truth. Hanging my hat on just meth for a moment, the crimes are not always monetary based. In fact, due to the damage meth does to the brain, many of the crimes are done because the guy just cant function anymore.

For sure, there are substances that can cause serious permanent damage. Then again, alcohol can do that, and there are numerous illegal drugs that are objectively less dangerous and harmful than alcohol. It goes without saying that if alcohol was introduced now, it'd be considered a hard drug. If they were legalized, there would be incentive to develop less harmful alternatives.

Idk if legal status has anything to do with getting a job though. Certainly prior convictions effect that, but being a junkie alone is enough to make a business owner pick someone else.

I would think junkies and in general drug users with clearly visible signs of continuous or problem use are a minority. You might be surprised for example about opioid use prevalence among medical doctors. Many jobs also have mandatory drug testing, where any kind of use, even a one-time experiment, can completely and permanently block employment. Of course this in some cases warranted, but I would personally no more want my airline pilot to be drunk than stoned or on acid.

I just see very limited downsides and quite a few upsides with legalizing everything. All or most criminal activities related to drug trafficking gone, probably a decrease in all drug related crime, income from taxation, drug related problems more in the open and easier to deal with, easier control and monitoring related to their sales and product safety, no massive prison populations to maintain and rejected from society etc. etc. I'm a believer.

[BananaStand]

No I'm not suggesting that at all, pretty much every policy change has some kind of impact and consequences, often unforeseen. What I do think is that the usage increasing effect of legalization is probably exaggerated, with Portugal and Holland being good evidence for that. In Portugal after legalization all drug use is down several percentage points, drug related crime and deaths are down, rate of HIV infections is down etc.

I feel like the Portugal situation is somewhat misleading. First of all, they didn't legalize drugs. They decriminalized possession and use. Kind of a big difference. They still enforce the border, and if someone tries to drive over it with 10 kilos of coke in the trunk, they're seriously fucked. It also mentioned in the article that somewhere along the way they implemented a mandatory minimum income. It's silly to think that's not one of, if not THE, major driver here. Decrease poverty, decrease crime. Sociology 101.

If they were legalized, there would be incentive to develop less harmful alternatives.

Addicts don't seek out less intense highs.

Of course this in some cases warranted, but I would personally no more want my airline pilot to be drunk than stoned or on acid.

Ok. If the pilot makes an error, pretty much any error, he'll be immediately tested for traces of illicit substances in his system...including alcohol. So I'm not seeing your point.

I just see very limited downsides and quite a few upsides with legalizing everything.....no massive prison populations to maintain and rejected from society etc. etc. I'm a believer.

Again, you're confusing legalization, and decriminalization. If drug use is decriminalized, we still have to do things to prevent drugs from coming in to this country. We'll still have to police and prosecute the producers, traffickers, and distributors of drugs. The "massive prison population" you refer to is a myth.

In America's federal prison, there are 247 people incarcerated for drug use/possession. Yes, just 247, out of a country of 320 million!!! Drug users in state prisons are a larger population, 46,000. But that's still just 3.5% of the total inmates in the state prison systems. Hardly an epidemic.

I also suspect that a good portion of those populations are extreme cases. For example, a heroin user gets busted, slapped on the wrist, and sent home. Two weeks later, he's busted again, sent to detox/rehab, and sent home. Then a short time later, he gets busted again.....eventually there comes a point where a judge might lock someone up for their own good.

[Hoopy]

@hoppy: Legalize even meth, heroin, and cocaine? That'd certainly impact the cartels, but do we really want more meth heads? People high on, or addicted to, meth are crazy. A huge percentage of crimes, from property crimes to homicides, are caused by meth heads. We might be trading one devil for another here

All of them. I don't necessarily think that would lead to an increase in meth use. If combined with regulation to improve the quality of these drugs and use of the excise tax on them to fund programs to help addicts and improve public health I think you would see a decrease in drug related problems.

[BananaStand]

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/on...rticle/2571730

87% of households with children, headed by an illegal immigrant, are utilizing welfare programs.

[Jack Sawyer]

I disagree with the concept/theory of the gov't, rather than the market, deciding what things should cost. Especially at the federal level




I realize that a minimum wage is effective in preventing the exploitation of workers who don't know any better, and are willing to work for sub-standard wages. It corrects potential unfairness in the market. But for my money, I'd rather go after the forces that are creating that unfairness.




I think the implementation and use of the minimum wage laws have become totally perverted now too.

Ok, ok

In regards to 'taking our jobs'. To some degree they are. But there is a bigger picture. When Jose mows your lawn for $5/hr, he's helping to hold down the wages for the entire labor market. Perhaps a legal worker is making $10/hr, but if he didn't have to compete with Jose, he could demand $12.

Isn't this market forces deciding?




I mean, "Jose" is already there. Yet if the government "evicts Jose", isn't the government then interfering with market decisions? According to your own logic, the market, and only the market, should decide what things should cost, right?

The minimum wage doesn't just apply to entry level workers. Let's say the minimum wage is $8 per hour, and you have 10 employees working at that rate, and 2 supervisors making $10/hr. If the minimum wage is raised to $9, you have to do more than just raise the 10 entry level employees. The supervisors want a raise too. Then so does their manager, and their manager, and so on. It moves the whole scale.




In effect, it becomes a way for the gov't to redistribute wealth, without technically raising taxes.




Finally this fight for a $15 minimum wage is positively absurd. It's an example of perverting the intent of a minimum wage law and demanding that it provide a "living wage".

But I can see where they are coming from. There are many people ("Millions of People") who haven't gotten raises in years because of the similar circumstances you mentioned before regarding that one dude from Bangladesh, was it? You will always be able to find a person on the job market more ready and willing to do any job than any other one already doing the job and for less. You either do it for whatever they want you to, or it's next man up.




A floor price for a given job helps to combat this phenomenon.




Corporations want profit, after all. That is the sole purpose of a corporation. Not to be good, not to be evil, but profit. If you can find a person who is willing to do a job for $2 and can do so, say some low skill stuff like cleaning floors, but also higher skill stuff like implementing a database (outsource to India), they will employ the lower cost person always. What's there to stop them?

[BananaStand]

Isn't this market forces deciding?

Not really,. Not if those market forces have been tainted by criminal activity. Jose's employer has unfair leverage over him, that depresses his wage artificially. As I said, I prefer to combat the forces that create unfairness in the market place (ie. Illegal Immigration), and then leave the rest up to the market.

If you can find a person who is willing to do a job for $2 and can do so, say some low skill stuff like cleaning floors, but also higher skill stuff like implementing a database (outsource to India), they will employ the lower cost person always. What's there to stop them?

The question is....why is that person willing to do the job for $2. If it's because they are illegal, underage, in a protected class, or disabled, then there are other remedies for those problems. Employing illegal and underage workers is a crime. As is discriminating against the disabled or other protected classes.

Or, if a person is just desperate and willing to work for cheap, then that is a symptom of a labor market that has become too competitive. In other words, unemployment is high. That's indicative of much larger economic problems that won't be solved through a minimum wage.

In a healthy economy, it's an employee's market. Employers compete for talent, and that keeps wages up.

Again, I realize that the minimum wage sort of works. And ending a minimum wage is not a crusade I'm particularly passionate about. Most part-time entry level jobs that I see advertised in my area already pay well over the federal minimum wage, so it's really a moot policy.

I could sort of get behind the idea of a minimum wage on the state/municipal level. If workers in those particular communities want to exercise the democratic process and implement a minimum wage...I guess I'm ok with it. however, I do see the potential for perversion as some highly liberal municipalities have already chosen to drastically jack up the minimum wage.

Like I said, pay attention to Portland, OR. It will be interesting to see how simple things, like the price of a pizza, will be affected as they implement a significant hike to the minimum wage over the next few years.

[OngBonga]

I don't want to vote, because there isn't a "couldn't give a fuck" option.

What's the score?

[Jack Sawyer]

Not really,. Not if those market forces have been tainted by criminal activity. Jose's employer has unfair leverage over him, that depresses his wage artificially. As I said, I prefer to combat the forces that create unfairness in the market place (ie. Illegal Immigration), and then leave the rest up to the market.






The question is....why is that person willing to do the job for $2. If it's because they are illegal, underage, in a protected class, or disabled, then there are other remedies for those problems. Employing illegal and underage workers is a crime. As is discriminating against the disabled or other protected classes.

Whatever the reason, and you thought of many right there; it's happening right now.


Not discussing salaries contributes heavily to this as well. But, if the amount of people who can do a job (unskilled) is high, then obviously you have to take whatever they are willing to pay you, because if you don't then somebody else will. It's not as if you can flaunt credentials saying you can do this unskilled job better than somebody else etc. Obviously, more supply than demand drives the prices down, because if Jose is happy with just $2 to do it, you are fucked. The min. wage is just the floor for this, and the fight right now is to make this min. wage a living wage for the area.

Or, if a person is just desperate and willing to work for cheap, then that is a symptom of a labor market that has become too competitive. In other words, unemployment is high. That's indicative of much larger economic problems that won't be solved through a minimum wage.


In a healthy economy, it's an employee's market. Employers compete for talent, and that keeps wages up.

What is too cheap?


Also, employers competing for talent at entry-level jobs? I thought these jobs existed for the sole purpose of employing the unskilled. And the unfortunate who haven't had the opportunity to develop themselves for placement in higher positions, yet still have lives to live.

Again, I realize that the minimum wage sort of works. And ending a minimum wage is not a crusade I'm particularly passionate about. Most part-time entry level jobs that I see advertised in my area already pay well over the federal minimum wage, so it's really a moot policy.

Good for them, then the federal minimum wage does not apply to them. This should happen naturally in more places.

I could sort of get behind the idea of a minimum wage on the state/municipal level. If workers in those particular communities want to exercise the democratic process and implement a minimum wage...I guess I'm ok with it. however, I do see the potential for perversion as some highly liberal municipalities have already chosen to drastically jack up the minimum wage.

I do as well. There is perversion everywhere, such as god damn it is $8 for a fucking smoothie in NYC

Like I said, pay attention to Portland, OR. It will be interesting to see how simple things, like the price of a pizza, will be affected as they implement a significant hike to the minimum wage over the next few years.

Exactly. Let the long term effects manifest themselves. It already is god damn $8 for a fucking smoothie in NYC anyway.

[BananaStand]

Not discussing salaries contributes heavily to this as well. But, if the amount of people who can do a job (unskilled) is high, then obviously you have to take whatever they are willing to pay you, because if you don't then somebody else will.

Have you considered that maybe the company doesn't want that guy who's willing to work for cheaper? Maybe there is a reason that guy is willing to take a lower wage. Maybe the company feels that it's worth the extra cost to get a higher quality laborer.

It's not as if you can flaunt credentials saying you can do this unskilled job better than somebody else etc.

You'd be surprised. At that level you can separate yourself from the crowd pretty easily by doing simple things like showing up on time, keeping your uniform clean, and just having a decent attitude.

Obviously, more supply than demand drives the prices down, because if Jose is happy with just $2 to do it, you are fucked.

How long will Jose be happy with $2? How long before someone offers him $3? You're only fucked if Jose can't job-hop because of his illegal status. That keeps the wage perpetually depressed.

The min. wage is just the floor for this, and the fight right now is to make this min. wage a living wage for the area.

GRRR! Sorry, but this is the most infuriating argument for having a floor. Who says it has to be a living wage? Who says that showing up to the easiest jobs there are entitles you to a livelihood? What if these jobs are staffed by part time college kids, retirees, or someone who is not the primary bread-winner in their household?

If someone is really so hopelessly unemployable that they can only ever aspire to minimum wage work, for their entire lives, then social welfare programs should help them make ends meet. That's what those safety nets are for. Yet 87% of illegal immigrants are taking a bite out of that pie. So that guy is getting fucked over. That's why I reject MMM's argument that illegal immigrants aren't hurting anyone. Actually, it's a double fuck-over for that guy because the wage he is earning is depressed because of the illegal labor market.

Also, employers competing for talent at entry-level jobs?

Oh hell yes my friend.

Let's take the company that I work for as an example. We operate a pretty simple operation utilizing entry-level unskilled labor. Basically you take boxes off of an airplane, and put them on a truck. Easy game.

In one particular city, we were offering a starting wage of $8.50/hour, which is approximately a dollar higher than the federal minimum. We had a real problem meeting our service goals to our customer. Quality was poor. Customer was not happy. The problem was identified as a problem with employee retention. We had very high employee turnover because other companies in the area were offering a better starting wage than we were. Someone might take a job with us, but that doesn't mean we own him for life. He might go to McDonalds over the weekend, see that they're hiring at $10/hr, and next thing you know, he's gone.

So the people we were able to keep were the people that McDonalds didn't want. Not an awesome situation.

So, in order to compete for a higher quality of unskilled labor, we now offer a $10 starting wage. And, that trickled up the chain. Lead agents making $10 before now make $12. Supervisors getting $12 before now make $15. And of course, the customer pays a higher price.

They don't mind paying the higher price, because their quality of service is improved. The company doesn't mind paying the higher wage, because we have less turnover and happy customer.

Your mistake is assuming that all unskilled labor is created equal. It's not. Employers do compete for good workers.

[Jack Sawyer]

I don't want to vote, because there isn't a "couldn't give a fuck" option.

What's the score?

Start giving a fuck and you'll see. Or don't give a fuck, then you will remain not giving a fuck ergo not giving a fuck about the score.

[OngBonga]

Start giving a fuck and you'll see. Or don't give a fuck, then you will remain not giving a fuck ergo not giving a fuck about the score.

Ok, I'll rephrase.

I would like an option that says "I don't give enough of a fuck to have an opinion either way, yet am still curious to know what the score is."

[BananaStand]

So I mentioned my own company in my previous post. We take boxes off of planes, and put them onto trucks.

I mentioned how we adjust our starting wages to the market, and pass the cost on to our customer. We, and that customer pay the market rate necessary to achieve an acceptable level of quality. No more, no less. Let's call that customer, Customer A

My company also has a contract with another customer, Customer B. Customer B feels that THEY get to dictate the market rate for part time entry level work. And they're opinion is higher than the actual market rate. In addition it is their opinion that even part time entry level workers are entitled to fringe benefits. If the company doesn't offer those benefits, they must pay a premium wage of approximately $5 more.

In other words, our employees who work on this contract, make some $6-$8 more per hour doing the same job of taking boxes off of planes, and putting them on to trucks, simply because of this Customer's insistence on a minimum wage.

Company A, is UPS, a profitable company known as one of the best run and most efficient operations in the world.

Company B, is the United States Postal Service which loses $5 billion annually.

So who's better at determining the right wage to pay people? The government? or the market?

[JKDS]

Is that really a fair comparison? The work loads seem vastly different to me. It also seems the amount of work required to deliver mail increases exponentially with the amount of mail. Easy to sort and deliver 1 letter, much harder and more costly to sort and deliver 100, and even more to deliver 1,000,000.

[BananaStand]

Is that really a fair comparison?

It's the most fair comparison there is. My company isn't involved in the delivering of mail. I can't speak for other parts of the supply chain. But at the bulk cargo level, the service we provide to UPS is identical to the service we provide to the Post Office. We're taking boxes off of planes, and putting them on to trucks.

Yes, the complexity after that probably contributes to the $5 billion losses. However, paying 1.5x the market rate for cargo services is most definitely a factor as well.

[OngBonga]

Fine, bollocks to you, I'll mess the poll up by voting.

Heads, approve
Tails, disapprove

It's heads.

Approve.

[OngBonga]

5-2 for disapprove? Faggots.

[VanDam]

Can't wait to see all my tax dollars wasted on a pipe dream project.

[VanDam]

It's going to be great, the U.S market is eventually going to collapse... And then we are screwed. Then our "President" and his supporters will have to lay in the bed he made.

[Hoopy]

@JKDS

Another thought is that legalizing drugs will probably lead to more R&D in the industry. Resulting in new and improved drugs that have less harmful effects, we may also inadvertently help the medical field with these discoveries.

[BananaStand]

@JKDS

Another thought is that legalizing drugs will probably lead to more R&D in the industry. Resulting in new and improved drugs that have less harmful effects, we may also inadvertently help the medical field with these discoveries.

Totally disagree.
What if your dream of R&D efforts producing a highly satisfying high without harmful effects came to fruition? How long would it take before people look for a better high? Four out of five heroin users start with prescription drugs, you know.

Suppose heroin became legal 20 years ago, and we've been living with it ever since. What are you going to do when the cartels develop fentanyl, which is 50 times more powerful than heroin? The import it illegally, hire gangs to distribute it, sell it cheap to eat up market share, and have the gangs police themselves using street violence.

You're right back where you started.

[Savy]

You're right back where you started.

Why would that problem be any different from the original one?

[BananaStand]

Why would that problem be any different from the original one?

It's not. That's my point. Legalizing drugs won't solve the problem.

[Savy]

It's not. That's my point. Legalizing drugs won't solve the problem.

No, the only problem is caused by the criminality of the substance. If it isn't illegal then none of what you said happens.

The negatives are the same for what we see with lots of other addictive substances that are legal. Things like being disorderly, committing crime to pay for things. It isn't a perfect solution by any means but the majority of arguments made against it start with the line drugs are bad and never budge.

[Savy]

I'm thinking one of the problems of legalising drugs would actually be the huge amount of people it would put out of work who work in illegal industries & make money doing so. Then you get lots of people not going to prison. Probably a bad thing.

[wufwugy]

I'm thinking one of the problems of legalising drugs would actually be the huge amount of people it would put out of work who work in illegal industries & make money doing so. Then you get lots of people not going to prison. Probably a bad thing.

Broken window fallacy. Prosperity comes from that which is produced, ultimately. Criminal production is a cost; prisoner consumption is a cost.

[Savy]

Broken window fallacy. Prosperity comes from that which is produced, ultimately. Criminal production is a cost; prisoner consumption is a cost.

The prisoner bit is. The other bit isn't. It probably isn't so much a bad thing as a very strange thing that has never really been seen, that kind of assumes the change is much quicker than ever materialises in real life.

[wufwugy]

The prisoner bit is. The other bit isn't. It probably isn't so much a bad thing as a very strange thing that has never really been seen, that kind of assumes the change is much quicker than ever materialises in real life.

That's good looking out. Criminality is an example of something with benefits that economists have no idea how to assess. In simple terms, it's a cost, but the world is never simple.

[JKDS]

It's more than just the addictive nature of a drug like heroin. It's that your first high is the best, and users tend to keep chasing that first high. They do so by increasing the dose, thereby increasing the chacne of a fatal reaction.

[JKDS]

Are we supposed to "win" the war on drugs?

[Savy]

Are we supposed to "win" the war on drugs?

Probably aren't meant to be losing it.