The Wall

[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.