The Wall

[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?

[MadMojoMonkey]

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?

Yes, pretty much. Except I'd like to clarify this much:

I'm not saying the gov't should recognize anything but the cost per inmate to imprison someone and the number of inmates in American prisons. We're really off the charts for the rate at which we incarcerate our own citizens in the USA. It's another sad, but true fact.

I'm mostly asking if there is a cheaper way to handle this. I'm asking if we're adult enough to admit that we can't fix this, as it's an ugly part of humanity, and our efforts to deter it by criminalizing it have been expensive in taxes and in the difficulties faces by families of non-violent criminals.

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

Well, I'm certain neither of us knows, and I don't see how this question is relevant.

I'd guess that the number of terrorists in Syrian refugees is non-0, but also the number of terrorists who leave Syria then don't commit acts of terror is also non-0, and the number who would have done something but were thwarted by law enforcement would also be non-0. So prob a whole ton of innocent people to help for each potential threat, and not all threats will do actual harm... IDK.

I'd rather help people when they ask for help and punish people when they break laws than to make presumptions about what people will do in the future and discriminate against them.

[BananaStand]

I'm not saying the gov't should recognize anything but the cost per inmate to imprison someone and the number of inmates in American prisons. We're really off the charts for the rate at which we incarcerate our own citizens in the USA. It's another sad, but true fact.

ok, but I'm not seeing how that's particularly relevant to the 'drugs over the border' discussion. The amount of folks in prison for drug use/possession is minute. People in prison for drugs are dealers, traffickers, or folks who were arrested for drug possession AND something else like having an illegal handgun. There may be a few exceptions, but the majority of inmates, by far, really do deserve to be there.

It's not just a monetary issue anyway. Addiction ruins lives, destroys families, and kills people. If its a little more expensive to prevent that rather than tolerate it....I'm ok with the cost.

I'd rather help people when they ask for help and punish people when they break laws than to make presumptions about what people will do in the future and discriminate against them.

I only asked the Syrian question because you were posing it as a simple cost exercise. If border enforcement costs more than the benefits of cheap illegal labor, then don't enforce the border. Is that not your position?

I'm saying then, what benefit does a Syrian refugee bring to the table? Surely it's more expensive to bring in a refugee than an illegal. The refugee gets 'taken care of' to some degree. Giving them access to education and social programs costs money. What's the cost of simply leaving them out altogether?

I see your points about the cost/benefit of illegal mexican labor. I totally disagree with your math and conclusion, however, suppose I stipulated for a moment. A Syrian refugee fails your economic test. Yet if I recall, you were against the travel ban when we discussed that a while back. Why are you using different standards for admitting people from different countries?

Unfortunately, I don't think you can use the 'humanitarian' argument as you've already stated that the government should be taking a callous, insurance-industry-like, approach to attaching $ values to the lives of people.

[Hoopy]

The Wall is a waste of time and money.

Legalize drugs in the USA, regulate and tax them.

Allow a market for drug production and import.

The cartels will lose market share due to increased competition weakening their revenue stream.

Drug related violence will decrease in Mexico and USA.

Money taken from drug tax and saved in reduced services costs can go to other things.

Better enforcement on companies using illegal labour, improved help for addicts etc etc.

Repurpose DEA to go after human/sex/animal trafficking harder.

[MadMojoMonkey]

ok, but I'm not seeing how that's particularly relevant to the 'drugs over the border' discussion.

It's relevant because the drugs over the border problem is not a single problem with a single solution.
IF the only solution is to keep more drugs out and further criminalize drug related activity, then obviously more law enforcement, more prisons, harsher sentences, etc. are in order.
It's just not that cut and dry.
We've been trying the criminalization of drug related activities and it's supremely expensive and questionably effective. Drug use hasn't gone down due to the war on drugs. It's a constant. People didn't stop drinking during prohibition, and prohibition didn't make America better by criminalizing alcohol use. I don't see why alcohol is legal, regulated, and heavily taxed, despite the known problems with excessive use, yet other inebriates can't be handled the same way.

There are a crazy number of deaths due to drunk driving in the USA every year, and we accept that as a cost of freedom. Your position that risk of death is adequate motivation to outlaw something is clearly belied by legal alcohol and legal driving. It's illegal to mix the 2, but either on its own is fine.
Legalization, regulation, and heavy taxation is a money maker. Criminalization is a money eater.

To be clear... my position is that this is all ugly and that our current tack is expensive and IF it is working, it's not working much or well. I'm not saying that I endorse drug use, I'm saying that if there is a way that we, as a society, can reduce the cost of this ugly humanity, then I'm in favor.

The amount of folks in prison for drug use/possession is minute. People in prison for drugs are dealers, traffickers, or folks who were arrested for drug possession AND something else like having an illegal handgun. There may be a few exceptions, but the majority of inmates, by far, really do deserve to be there.

I hope you'll forgive me if I find your hubris to assert what other people deserve as not compelling evidence to sway my beliefs.

It's not just a monetary issue anyway. Addiction ruins lives, destroys families, and kills people. If its a little more expensive to prevent that rather than tolerate it....I'm ok with the cost.

People are free to ruin their lives. This is one of the consequences of freedom.

I 100% agree with you that I would gladly support more comprehensive addiction prevention and addiction rehabilitation programs.
I'm in disagreement that incarceration is helping anyone, here.

I think it's very much like we, as a society, are waiting until someone to go over the edge, then we punish them for falling. If there is a better way, I want it.

I only asked the Syrian question because you were posing it as a simple cost exercise. If border enforcement costs more than the benefits of cheap illegal labor, then don't enforce the border. Is that not your position?

That is not my position.

My position is that the current laws seem to be criminalizing good-willed people who are not hurting anyone.
My position is that perhaps rather than doubling down on a bad policy, we re-examine our actual goals, here, and find a way to better achieve them.

I'm saying then, what benefit does a Syrian refugee bring to the table? Surely it's more expensive to bring in a refugee than an illegal. The refugee gets 'taken care of' to some degree. Giving them access to education and social programs costs money. What's the cost of simply leaving them out altogether?

What benefit, indeed?
You don't know. I don't know. This experiment hasn't been performed.
To go from, "I don't know." to "It must be..." with no steps in between is a hallmark hubris, not data.

The cost of doing nothing? Prob next to nothing.
The benefits of helping your neighbor? Hard to predict, but prob. good.
You'll prob need help someday, and it'll be nice if people see you as someone who helps others at that time. (Yeah, weak argument.)

Seems pretty rude to have your neighbor come over all beaten and bloody and ask if they can come inside to get away from that mess and for you to just give them a "Nah."

Yet if I recall, you were against the travel ban when we discussed that a while back. Why are you using different standards for admitting people from different countries?

I did math and drew conclusions on this? Show me. I don't recall doing that.
In fact, I love math so much that I know I didn't do that. I'd remember it.

Are you talking about my meandering about non-0 this and that, which I ended the paragraph with IDK.
Paragraphs that end with IDK are categorically not drawing conclusions.

IDK how you can assert that a Syrian refugee fails the economic test. If we're talking in the immediate short-term, then yeah, but the long term benefits of helping someone and having earned their gratitude and respect are non-0.

Yet if I recall, you were against the travel ban when we discussed that a while back. Why are you using different standards for admitting people from different countries?

You're not serious are you?
OMG, you're serious.

You just invented a position that I never said I hold and think you "got me" because your invented position is in opposition to my prior stated position.

I'm not using different standards. If you read my actual points, rather than invent some cartoon opposition to your positions, we'd have a more productive conversation.

To clarify: My position on the travel ban is, "If extreme vetting is necessary for one group of immigrants, then it's necessary for all groups of immigrants." Treating people differently under the law should only happen on an individual, case by case basis where there is evidence of wrong-doing. Anything else is bigotry of some form.

My position on illegal immigration is, "Are the laws we currently have actually any good?"
It's not even an assertion, merely a query about whether the current laws are falsely criminalizing otherwise law-abiding citizens.

Unfortunately, I don't think you can use the 'humanitarian' argument as you've already stated that the government should be taking a callous, insurance-industry-like, approach to attaching $ values to the lives of people.

Seriously again?
SMH. It's like you barely read enough of my posts to fill up with emotion over some perceived position that I do not hold, then you type up a flurry of "gotcha" stuff at me over something I never said.

My position on this is that it is sad but true that the gov't has to do this. That doesn't reduce the humanity of anything, it only acknowledges that at some level, ignoring the harsh realities is folly.

If you're going to boil all my positions down to the complexity of a teenager, even when I've described the nuance of my understanding and my struggle to find a way to understand the world through more than just my own behavior, as an adult who is, and will always be, under-informed on the issues, then why are you here?

If you honestly understand my positions and disagree with me, then bring on that conversation.
As it stands, I feel like I'm talking to a pissed off teenager who is getting some perverse pleasure out of the melodrama of the situation.

[BananaStand]

There are a crazy number of deaths due to drunk driving in the USA every year, and we accept that as a cost of freedom. Your position that risk of death is adequate motivation to outlaw something is clearly belied by legal alcohol and legal driving. It's illegal to mix the 2, but either on its own is fine.

You can't equate dangerous drugs to alcohol. You can have a drink or two, and not be impaired. You can't just get a buzz on heroin. Also, the destructive effects of alcohol are only experienced by a minority of users, and only after prolonged frequent use. In other words, not every drinker is an alcoholic. No single drink will destroy your liver.

Heroin and cocaine are significantly more addictive, often after just one use. Impairment is immediate, and extreme. Overdose is a risk virtually every single time you use. There's no such thing as a 'social heroin user', or a 'casual meth head'.

Legalization, regulation, and heavy taxation is a money maker. Criminalization is a money eater.

Do you not agree that heroin, cocaine, and meth have much more intense, immediate, and destructive effects than alcohol? how are you going to police irresponsible use like we do with alcohol? Police patrol roadways and are trained to look for signs of impaired driving. I don't know how many DUI arrests there are on any given day in America, but I'll bet it's alot.

Wouldn't you expect that to increase if you permit more inebriates to the market? And because of the higher intensity of addiction, you're likely to have more repeat offenders. The addiction will surely be stronger than the deterrent until you reach a point where you physically have to lock these people up. Then we're right back to your original complaint that it costs too much to enforce drug laws.

I hope you'll forgive me if I find your hubris to assert what other people deserve as not compelling evidence to sway my beliefs.

Well it's not what *I* think they deserve, its' what a judge, jury, and an advanced system of justice thinks they deserve.

I'm in disagreement that incarceration is helping anyone, here..

I think it's very much like we, as a society, are waiting until someone to go over the edge, then we punish them for falling. If there is a better way, I want it.

I believe you're significantly over-stating the cost of incarceration for drug offenses. The number of inmates within the federal prison system, whose worst offense is drug possession, is less than 250. In a country of 320 million!

My position is that the current laws seem to be criminalizing good-willed people who are not hurting anyone.

They are hurting someone. They are taking a job that could otherwise be staffed by an american. They are participating in an illegal labor market that depresses wages for legal workers. They are shirking their taxpaying responsibilities. And they are burdening our social programs (87% of them are on welfare).

IDK how you can assert that a Syrian refugee fails the economic test. If we're talking in the immediate short-term, then yeah, but the long term benefits of helping someone and having earned their gratitude and respect are non-0.

Is it really respect? Did we earn Cuba's respect by taking in their refugees in the early 80's? Or did they snicker behind our backs at how they were able to unload a burden of undesirables onto another country? Is Mexico respecting us by publishing pamphlets that teach people how to exist in the United States undetected?

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/06/wo...n-us.html?_r=0

To clarify: My position on the travel ban is, "If extreme vetting is necessary for one group of immigrants, then it's necessary for all groups of immigrants."

Different topic now, but you're ignoring the fact that some immigrants come from countries with friendly/centralized governments who are willing to provide vetting information. No extreme measures necessary.

Treating people differently under the law should only happen on an individual, case by case basis where there is evidence of wrong-doing. Anything else is bigotry of some form.

Your position is a form of xenophobia.

My position on illegal immigration is, "Are the laws we currently have actually any good?"

If they aren't, which you seem to believe, what would you do instead? A wall?