Tunnel found under the US/Mexico border

[BigRob]

1) Safer yes but currently it is far from easy to enter the US legally.

Well this thread is not really about legal immigration, but I will say I can agree we can make it easier for people to come here legally, but that does not mean everyone who wants to come right now can come.

2) Did the mobsters continue bootleg operations after alcohol prohibition ended?

The better question is did the mob dissolve after alcohol prohibition ended? I think we can all agree that they did not.

3) Competition makes it hard for the cartel to make a buck off it. They want a quick easy buck not a legitimate business.

Competition with who? Drug cartels could arguably easily undercut the prices of the legitimate competitors, and continue to make money selling drugs. Additionally, they do not have to run legitimate businesses persay, they can run front businesses and sell the drugs illegally (free of government red tape, taxes, licenses etc, which presumably means cheaper).

 

[PLC1]

Ok, so we all support illegal immigration because we want to pay people substandard wages? I thought that was why we shipped all of our jobs to Mexico.

If "we" means big businesses looking for cheap labor, then yes, that is why we shipped our jobs to Mexico, and why we want illegal labor to do tasks that can't be shipped out of the country.

So we will legalize drugs, but continue to spend billions on enforcement preventing illegal drugs from coming into the country?

We won't have to continue to spend billions on enforcement if there is little demand for them. That is the point of decriminalization.

I have a hard time believing that the government is not going to step in and heavily regulate a legalized drug market, which will either drive the costs up, or involve subsidies.... I don't see much political support for subsidizing drug use of others, which leaves the door open for cheaper products from Mexico.

Of course, the government will regulate them, but the driving force behind the cartels and their wars, easy profits, would be greatly diminished.

Well you are making it sounds like the government is going to be back to providing drugs under medical supervision. Apathy seemed to indicate (and I could be wrong) that it would be entrepreneurs doing so with no medical supervision. Those are two different scenarios.

You're both partly correct. The private sector would be in charge, but there would have to be medical supervision. Selling pot at the local Quickie Mart might be OK, but selling cocaine the same way won't, just like selling any other pharmaceutical at the Quickie Mart isn't a good idea, nor is it done by government.

Further, why couldn't a cartel compete? I imagine there will be a mountain of red tape, licenses to pay for, taxes etc etc... a cartel has none of that, and unless we continue to heavily fund DEA etc to monitor the border (which saves us no real money) then it will be far easier for them to come in with their cheaper product.

None of which would come close to driving the price as high as outlawing it has done. How many speakeasies are there? How many people are buying prescription drugs from unknown sources in Mexico? Safety and purity is another consideration, along with price. No one is going to go to the guy on the corner with the glassy eyed stare and pay more than they would at the neighborhood pharmacy.

 

[GenSeneca]

Greetings Apathy and welcome to the HOP.

You seem to have made some assumptions about what I was arguing for based on what I was arguing against... It's a false dilemma fallacy that infers an either-or scenario without taking other possibilities into account.

I'm for open immigration, which is not to be confused with open boarders. Government should enforce the boarders by keeping an eye on who comes into the country to fulfill its role of protecting individual rights. There should be no limits placed on how many people may enter but they would still have to enter legally.

I'm for eliminating the welfare state. We have been shackled to one another in the collectivist chains of bondage for too long and rather than add more links in the chain we need to be set free of one another in order to voluntarily choose our associations.

Once the welfare state has been abolished, I would be for the legalization of all drugs. While my wallet is forcably tied to someone elses drug addiction, legalization is not an option.

I do not support the idea of building a wall nor the idea of creating a National ID. Both are absurd ideas, both can be overcome with relative ease, both are the equivilent of shoveling money into ocean since neither of them do anything to address the root of the problem - The number of people wanting to get in is greater than the number of people allowed to enter.

 

[Apathy]

Greetings Apathy and welcome to the HOP.

You seem to have made some assumptions about what I was arguing for based on what I was arguing against... It's a false dilemma fallacy that infers an either-or scenario without taking other possibilities into account.

1)I'm for open immigration, which is not to be confused with open boarders. Government should enforce the boarders by keeping an eye on who comes into the country to fulfill its role of protecting individual rights. There should be no limits placed on how many people may enter but they would still have to enter legally.

2)I'm for eliminating the welfare state. We have been shackled to one another in the collectivist chains of bondage for too long and rather than add more links in the chain we need to be set free of one another in order to voluntarily choose our associations.

Once the welfare state has been abolished, I would be for the legalization of all drugs. While my wallet is forcably tied to someone elses drug addiction, legalization is not an option.

3)I do not support the idea of building a wall nor the idea of creating a National ID. Both are absurd ideas, both can be overcome with relative ease, both are the equivilent of shoveling money into ocean since neither of them do anything to address the root of the problem - The number of people wanting to get in is greater than the number of people allowed to enter.

1) No disagreement it would be foolish to allow everyone in at once we simply couldnt handle that as a nation some regulation is needed.

2) Agreed you should not be forced to pay for others addictions.

3) I wasnt saying you were for the national ID card it appears you made an assumption of your own. You were focused on the cost of the ID card which would not be that much. The social consequences would be much higher. I dont know about you but I would not like to be walking down the street and have someone ask for my papers. I knew you didnt like it I was just pointing out the other major problem with the ID card.

 

[GenSeneca]

Comprehensive drug reform would entail laws that actually reflect the potential damage each drug can do to society.

More empty rhetoric...

Cocaine could be made available to addicts under medical care, which would be far and away cheaper than what we're doing currently.

I don't see being forced to pay for Joe Blow to continue his coke addiction outside of jail being any better than being forced to pay for him to rot in jail for being a coke addict.

...a campaign to discourage the use of any addictive substance would be a better solution....

Uh... We've been doing that for decades.

There is no reason why a national ID card would cost more than a driver's license.... After every legal worker has an ID, then fining employers of illegals would severely diminish the number of illegals being hired.

As Big Rob pointed out, you're shifting the financial responsibility of illegal immigration onto the private sector, forcing individuals to pay for the failures of our government to protect the borders.

If an ID were required for any government service, that would encourage even more to go back home.

People spend everything they have to get here, some go into debt with smugglers to get into the country, but you think just packing it all up to "go home and wait in line" is a realistic possibility for these people?

There are solutions to these problems that don't entail huge expenses

But you have yet to offer any... Shifting the financial costs from the government to the private sector doesn't actually make the program "cheaper".

that would work a lot better than simply ... supporting a multi billion dollar boondoggle in the form of a border fence.

How about a multi billion dollar boondoggle in the form of a National ID that doesn't address the actual problem of border security?

How can anyone believe that a fence would work after seeing the sophisticated tunnels that are bringing illegal drugs and illegal aliens into the country?

How can anyone believe a National ID would work knowing how often State ID's and even our currency is counterfeited? Both the fence and the NID are feel good gestures, not actual solutions.

 

[Apathy]

1)Well this thread is not really about legal immigration, but I will say I can agree we can make it easier for people to come here legally, but that does not mean everyone who wants to come right now can come.



2)The better question is did the mob dissolve after alcohol prohibition ended? I think we can all agree that they did not.



3)Competition with who? Drug cartels could arguably easily undercut the prices of the legitimate competitors, and continue to make money selling drugs. Additionally, they do not have to run legitimate businesses persay, they can run front businesses and sell the drugs illegally (free of government red tape, taxes, licenses etc, which presumably means cheaper).

1) Of course it should be regulated it would be irresposible not to.

2) They needed to find a new source of income and their power diminished greatly. Now there main income is from small time thefts.

3) I debunk scenerio after scenerio... Do you plan to keep making up scenerios until I get tired of debuning them all. People value their safety big rob saving a few buck on an ounce of weed isnt worth their life. People only get into bed with the cartel because they have to. Do you know of anyone who goes to the mob to buy whiskey anymore? No they go to the local liquor distributor.

 

[GenSeneca]

You were focused on the cost of the ID card

True, but only because PLC1 was trying to claim it would be cheaper than a border fence and that's simply not the case.

I do agree with you that an NID would be just another dangerous step in the wrong direction as far as our individual rights and civil liberties are concerned.

 

[Apathy]

True, but only because PLC1 was trying to claim it would be cheaper than a border fence and that's simply not the case.

I do agree with you that an NID would be just another dangerous step in the wrong direction as far as our individual rights and civil liberties are concerned.

YOU LEFTIST! lol

 

[BigRob]

We won't have to continue to spend billions on enforcement if there is little demand for them. That is the point of decriminalization.

How exactly does decriminalization reduce demand, other than in name only? If that is the case, why not decriminalize murder... since that would "reduce demand".

Did the legalization of alcohol reduce demand for alcohol?

Of course, the government will regulate them, but the driving force behind the cartels and their wars, easy profits, would be greatly diminished.

No they won't. If they are taken out of the drug business at all, which I view as unlikely, they will just move to the next "easy profit." Did the mob vanish when alcohol made legal?

You're both partly correct. The private sector would be in charge, but there would have to be medical supervision. Selling pot at the local Quickie Mart might be OK, but selling cocaine the same way won't, just like selling any other pharmaceutical at the Quickie Mart isn't a good idea, nor is it done by government.

So if a druggie wants to go get his fix and is turned away, where will he turn? He is going to want to get his drugs. Maybe people want to continue to enjoy drugs "off the radar" of the government. I bet they would pay a premium to do so.

None of which would come close to driving the price as high as outlawing it has done. How many speakeasies are there? How many people are buying prescription drugs from unknown sources in Mexico? Safety and purity is another consideration, along with price. No one is going to go to the guy on the corner with the glassy eyed stare and pay more than they would at the neighborhood pharmacy.

In fact there are people in the US who go buy their prescriptions from Mexico, but that is not the main point.

You just told me that the neighborhood pharmacy would only be selling pot, which is not the main money maker for cartels. I imagine people who are addicts or want to get high off the radar would happily find an alternative method than going to a medical clinic.

The real outcome for legalization would result in two markets. The government controlled market, and the black market... the government would still spend billions of dollars trying to eliminate the black market, and all we will have accomplished is now making me pay for the recreational drug habits of those who are tied to the welfare state.

 

[BigRob]

1) Of course it should be regulated it would be irresposible not to.

2) They needed to find a new source of income and their power diminished greatly. Now there main income is from small time thefts.

Post alcohol legalization the mob moved into things like drugs, which continued to make them a ton of money.

The same can be said of groups who are currently selling counterfeit shampoos and making millions. The cartels are not going to simply go away regardless of if we legalize drugs or not.

3) I debunk scenerio after scenerio... Do you plan to keep making up scenerios until I get tired of debuning them all. People value their safety big rob saving a few buck on an ounce of weed isnt worth their life. People only get into bed with the cartel because they have to. Do you know of anyone who goes to the mob to buy whiskey anymore? No they go to the local liquor distributor.

You did not "debunk" anything exactly. Yes people value their safety, but a crack addict values getting their next hit over their safety. Are you talking about solely legalizing weed, or the legalization of all drugs?

 

[Gipper]

YOU LEFTIST! lol

You have that backwards. Leftists do not believe in liberty, the Constitution, capitalism, or individual rights.

 

[Apathy]

You have that backwards. Leftists do not believe in liberty, the Constitution, capitalism, or individual rights.

Tell that to Rick because I apparently am a leftist for holding the same point of view on that.

 

[Gipper]

Tell that to Rick because I apparently am a leftist for holding the same point of view on that.

And, leftists usually hate America and everything it stands for. They also want to change America into a tyrannical socialist sh*thole.

 

[Apathy]

And, leftists usually hate America and everything it stands for. They also want to change America into a tyrannical socialist sh*thole.

Is that what rush tells you to think?

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Is that what rush tells you to think?

could have been Beck you know never assume its Rush, when sometimes beck told them first ( though Tweedledee will always soon Follow Tweedledum and vice versa