Hello:

Since my "Let's talk" thread has turned into home decorating, I thought I'd start this one. It's OK, because I want to make an outlandish suggestion. I say outlandish, because I know how radical my solution sounds to you... I, on the other hand, I believe YOUR solution (the drug war/prohibition) to be an outlandish idea - especially since we HAVE a history with it. Yes, we HAVE a history with it. It actually HAPPENED right here, in the good ole US of A. It's NOT just a liberal idea.

The drug war has been intensifying for the last 30 years. Every time we "crack down", drug warriors are SURPRISED that it didn't work. Given that the drug cartels have TAKEN over Columbia, it should be NO surprise that the war is advancing northward. Yet, the drug warriors in the US, who started the whole thing, ARE surprised, and they KEEP on being surprised...

I don't know. What surprises me, is the surprise of the drug warriors. We DO have a history. SOME of us remember it.

Like I've suggested MANY times on these pages, in recent times, when we identify an enemy, we immediately shoot somebody else. If the reason you support the Arizona law is because of the drug war, you're shooting in the WRONG direction...

excon

What, precisely, was the suggestion?

Do you suspect some supporters of the Arizona law of only supporting it because of the drug war?

I support it because it authorizes local law enforcement to enforce Federal laws already on the books. Having read through it, it looks like that's all the Arizona law does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catsmine

What, precisely, was the suggestion?

Do you suspect some supporters of the Arizona law of only supporting it because of the drug war?

---

Hello Cats:

Sorry, I thought it was obvious. Ending the drug war.

FEAR is what drove the law in Arizona. FEAR is what drives our drug laws. I suggest if we END the drug war, the border war would END of its own accord. Hence, there would be no NEED for the Arizona law.

excon

Not much room for debate here. Prohibition doesn't work. Never has. Never will.

The downside is that if we ended it, all those DEA agents would have to go back and finish high school.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catsmine

Not much room for debate here.

---

Hello again, Cats:

Oh, no?? Just you wait... They'll say, all we need to do is "crack down". Bwa, ha ha ha.

excon

PS> You DO know that Americas toughest sheriff, Joe Arpio, who believes that assaulting the masculinity of his prisoners is a GOOD law enforcement tool, WAS a DEA agent before he was elected. I wonder if there's a connection... Hmmmm...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

PS> You DO know that Americas toughest sheriff, Joe Arpio, ... WAS a DEA agent before he was elected.

---

I did not know that. It does explain his disregard of "traditional" corrections theory. Then again, theories that led to Attica back in the day kind of scream for a re-examination anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catsmine

theories that led to Attica back in the day kind of scream for a re-examination anyway.

---

Hello again, Cats:

As noted earlier, we really DON'T seem to learn from our past... After Attica there was a complete reinventing of our correctional system geared more toward rehabilitation instead of punishment. But, that ended in 1988 with the Willie Horton episode, and get tough on crime has been the mantra ever since. It's turned us into the worlds largest jailer.

I don't know. We seem to get that if you poke a wild animal with a stick while he's caged up, you'd better NEVER let him out. But, we poke sticks at virtually every one of our prisoners, and then let 99% of 'em go. Then we're surprised to find out they're pissed off. What's up with THAT?

On the positive side, Senator Jim Webb from Virginia, has introduced a bill that'll change it all. It hasn't passed, but the conversation has begun.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Cats:

As noted earlier, we really DON'T seem to learn from our past... After Attica there was a complete reinventing of our correctional system geared more toward rehabilitation instead of punishment. But, that ended in 1988 with the Willie Horton episode, and get tough on crime has been the mantra ever since. It's turned us into the worlds largest jailer.

I dunno. We seem to get that if you poke a wild animal with a stick while he's caged up, you better NEVER let him out. But, we poke sticks at virtually every one of our prisoners, and then let 99% of 'em go. Then we're surprised to find out they're pissed off. What's up with THAT?

On the positive side, Senator Jim Webb from Virginia, has introduced a bill that'll change it all. It hasn't passed, but the conversation has begun.

excon

---

Have you got a link for that bill?

My theories/beliefs/feelings on criminality are by and large too outre` for public consumption. I think that prison is an insult to my dignity as a part of society. Jails are needed short term but warehousing people is stupid and ineffective.

Hello again, Cats:

I can't find a link to the specific bill, but here's a link to his senate webpage about it.

excon

PS> (edited) I suspect that once we agreed on exactly what IS crime, our solutions wouldn't be so different.

Sure spend time locking up the ones caught up in the organized greed for profits, and let the money flow.

Makes as much sense as chasing people who want work, and ignoring the ones who give them jobs, and low wages. They are the ones who benefit.

I agree though that Arizona is reacting to fear, and logic has gone out the window, since sending them back is the knee jerk solution to all their immigration problems. Just like locking up the users of the drugs, that make criminals so dangerous, and rich.

I would hate to see what would happen if employers had to pay a fair wage to legal immigrants, and how much drugs would stop being smuggled, and how empty the jails would be, if drugs were decriminalized, and taxed.

Ya think Arizona could afford to guard their own borders? Without profiling? I mean who walks through the dessert knowing they can't get work??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

I agree though that Arizona is reacting to fear,

---

Here we disagree. From everything I've seen Arizona is acting out of disgust that the Feds won't do their job enforcing immigration laws already on the books.

We can debate that, as it seems pretty clear that this new law was enacted after events that have instilled a fear into the law abiding citizenry, but the fact remains that the feds have indeed stepped up their border enforcement, as far as man power, and money. Its not enough.

But the history of any immigration reforms, has been fought tooth and nail, by big money interests for years. More so, what most don't know is not only the effects of drug trafficking on border states, but the business policies of many top echelon corporations that have laid off workers, and shuttered factories in the U.S. built them within the Mexican border, and exploited the cheaper labor cost by essentially turning them into sweat shops, then they closed those for a more profitable third world country.

The new law targets people looking for money any money, but does nothing for the reasons they sneak over here, somebody will give them a few bucks to work all day and make them some big cash.

Take away those that lure them here, you take away the motive to take a risk, and sneak here. Not the entire solution, but one that separates a working person from a criminal, as with the passing of recent events, as the shooting of a rancher, and I submit to you prevent the lumping of criminals, with those looking for work.

This new law is a direct reaction to the criminal element of illegal immigrants, but targets all who are illegal.

You think you're going to round up half a million men, women, and children, in Arizona, and not have serious blow back from the community they come from??

Think again, as there is a financial cost to the state for such an undertaking, if in nothing else but bus fare, and feeding, that many to get them back to the other side.

Not only is it fear of the criminal element, this new law doesn't even begin to address all the complex phases of securing the border, catching the criminals, rounding up half a million people, and moving them. That makes it illogical, not very well thought out, and chance of success almost zero.

That's because the federal law is vague, and unsustainable, and very hard to enforce. Just the way I see it though. I have been know to be wrong. But I wonder why Arizona chose to enact a bad law, rather than get the feds to participate on a greater level? Why is the crime rate actually going down in the places most affected by illegal immigrants? Why are these facts not brought out by the officials who wrote the law? I can only guess its because the progress made so far has been overshadowed greatly by the political climate and the looming elections.

Politicians have a way of making their case for reelection by putting a face on a boogy man they can oppose, that scares the hell out of their constituents. That's why I think fear and not pragmatism is the reason why we have what we have in Arizona, and I see the same thing happening here in Texas very soon. As I said FEAR!!

Don't get me wrong, we all should be up in arms against criminals, but do we have to take it out on the woman and children too? That's what the new law is all about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello:

Since my "Let's talk" thread has turned into home decorating, I thought I'd start this one. It's ok, because I want to make an outlandish suggestion. I say outlandish, because I know how radical my solution sounds to you... I, on the other hand, I believe YOUR solution (the drug war/prohibition) to be an outlandish idea - especially since we HAVE a history with it. Yes, we HAVE a history with it. It actually HAPPENED right here, in the good ole US of A. It's NOT just a liberal idea.

The drug war has been intensifying for the last 30 years. Every time we "crack down", drug warriors are SURPRISED that it didn't work. Given that the drug cartels have TAKEN over Columbia, it should be NO surprise that the war is advancing northward. Yet, the drug warriors in the US, who started the whole thing, ARE surprised, and they KEEP on being surprised.....

I dunno. What surprises me, is the surprise of the drug warriors. We DO have a history. SOME of us remember it.

Like I've suggested MANY times on these pages, in recent times, when we identify an enemy, we immediately shoot somebody else. If the reason you support the Arizona law is because of the drug war, you're shooting in the WRONG direction.....

excon

---

First, immigration laws are about that - law. A law and a policy that is suppose to support and enforce national sovereignty. What other country in the world does not have its own immigration laws? Does any other country have an open border policy? Does Mexico? Why should someone who immigrates legally have to go through a painstaking process that takes years and costs thousands of dollars. Is it, to use the liberal catchword for every debate, FAIR to the legal immigrant?



G&P

Well said, in. Why is it OK to violate Title 8 but not the other ones? If these same people came from Honduras into Mexico they would serve at least 2 years and have everything confiscated and then be sent back.

Hi ex what gets me about this "war" on drugs is the US has demonstrated it has the capability to take out with drones whoever it pleases in Pakistan and yet it's advisaries in this war are alive and well and yet they are even more dangerous to the US population than the Taliban. I guess this is another case for the US of they gave a war and no one came

Colombia is ruled by a democratically elected ,and very popular President ,Alvaro Uribe ,who is fighting and defeating narco-terrorist insurgents in his country.

The war on drugs is poorly named . It is simply law enforcement . If you don't like the laws change them . Funny ;with this wide spread support for making every drug legal you would think it would be easy to changes the laws . Maybe the people of the country think the risk of legalization are greater than the efforts needed to fight the crime.

This argument about prohibition makes no sense . Tobacco and alcohol are prohibitted for people under the age of 18 . Does that prevent underaged users from illegally getting tobacco and alcohol ? No. Gee ;maybe then we should surrender and place no age limits . No ;everyone would say that is an absurd conclusion.

Just because a law is difficult to enforce ;it doesn't mean that quid pro quo it is not worth having such a law.

Hello tom:

If they told you that from this day forward, you couldn't own or possess safety pins, would it be a "crime" if you had one? Or, would you consider the law to be the crime? Would you rid your house of safety pins? Would you speak to your children of the dangers of safety pins? Would you support cracking down if people didn't get rid of their safety pins? Would you come on a website like this to tell an exconvict to STOP yelling about safety pins - because it's the LAW? Do you believe what the government tells you WITHOUT question?

Do you intrinsically KNOW what crime is? Does somebody have to tell you that murder is wrong, that stealing is wrong, that rape is wrong? Why not? Would you, upon running into your first dealer, instinctively KNOW that pot is WRONG and SHOULD be against the law? What would be your first clue?

As a good Christian man, WHY do the cops NEED to tell you what IS and ISN'T against the law?

I suspect the above is a little too subtle for you.

excon

Subtle ? More like absurd ;unless you think the large majority of the American population equate the dangers associated with legalized drugs the equivalent of a pin prick.

Unlike you, ex, I don't associate everything with "the war on drugs."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

subtle ? more like absurd ;unless you think the large majority of the American population equate the dangers associated with legalized drugs the equivalent of a pin prick.

---

Hello again, tom:

Then you BELIEVE there is an intrinsic danger in drugs, that is absent from safety pins. Frankly, I find THAT absurd. In fact, I believe your position stems from a MORAL perspective, rather than a legal one. Because if it didn't, you would surly be calling for the prohibition of alcohol. Unless, of course, you believe that illegal drugs are MORE dangerous than alcohol.

excon

PS> I believe the American people are dumbed down SHEEP, willing to be scared if somebody tells them to be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Unlike you, ex, I don't associate everything with "the war on drugs."

---

Hello again, Steve:

Then maybe you better open those right wing baby blues.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

The war on drugs is poorly named . It is simply law enforcement . If you don't like the laws change them . Funny ;with this wide spread support for making every drug legal you would think it would be easy to changes the laws . Maybe the people of the country think the risk of legalization are greater than the efforts needed to fight the crime.

This argument about prohibition makes no sense . Tobacco and alcohol are prohibitted for people under the age of 18 . Does that prevent underaged users from illegally getting tobacco and alcohol ? No. Gee ;maybe then we should surrender and place no age limits . No ;everyone would say that is an absurd conclusion.

Just because a law is difficult to enforce ;it doesn't mean that quid pro quo it is not worth having such a law.

---

Tom you completely avoided the question, which was why doesn't the US use its technological and military superiority to solve the problem, if it is good enough to bomb the crap out of a few misquided religious maniacs in Pakistan surely it is just as useful to take out the drug cartels and help their loyal ally in Columbia, Mexico, etc. you want law enforcement, step it up to the next level. If Tobacco and alcohol was produced in Columbia you wouldn't have any problem with outlawing it.

I'm not avoiding the problem.
Our military actively combats the cartels . That is no secret.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

PS> I believe the American people are dumbed down SHEEP, willing to be scared if somebody tells them to be.

---

Like maybe Randolph Hearst and the most effective propaganda machine ever devised?

Quote:

---

Unless, of course, you believe that illegal drugs are MORE dangerous than alcohol.

---

They absolutely are . A small percentage of alcohol user's end goal is to become intoxicated. The same cannot be said for drug users .An intoxicating high is the aim of the drug user.

Quote:

---

In fact, I believe your position stems from a MORAL perspective, rather than a legal one.

---

Many laws are derived out of a sense of moral responsibility . So that is pretty much an irrelevant point.
But I'd say it is more a matter of defending America's general welfare ,and the considering both the safety of users and non-users.

You may make a better argument for marijuana I guess . But you can't tell me the stoned pcb,crack ,crystal meth user is not a danger to more than just themselves.

No more dangerous than drunk drivers are and we know what they can do. When was the last time a stoned PCB,crack ,crystal meth user wiped out a family??

That doesn't count because its legal??

You ignore the fact that it is only a small percentage of drinkers who's aim is to get stone cold drunk ;and fewer still who get behind the wheel drunk.

And of course the obvious flaw in your argument is that the person drunk behind the wheel committed a criminal act. In the case of the driver "wiping out a family " it's homicide.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

You may make a better argument for marijuana I guess . But you can't tell me the stoned pcb,crack ,crystal meth user is not a danger to more than just themselves.

---

Hello tom:

Couple things... In the first place, pcb, crack, meth and all sorts of illegal drugs ARE available in the marketplace, their illegality notwithstanding. The drug war has done NOTHING to abate their availability. Therefore, it's time to try something else.

Drug warriors lie a lot, so it's difficult to tell WHEN to believe them. But, the fact is, addiction to the drugs you named IS as bad as you think it is. I suggest that MOST addicts know that, and WANT to quit. But without treatment, it AIN'T going to happen. I wonder if you think that addiction to alcohol is LESS ugly.

Given those facts, it's my view, that if those drugs were legalized and regulated, AND we offered the addict treatment on demand, there would be a NET REDUCTION in drug use. Yes, there are a few who would take it up... But, I suggest that more addicts would quit, than people who would experiment...

If that were to happen, the danger to society that addicts pose, and I include addiction to alcohol, heroine, pcp, meth, and whatever else you want to include, to be the same...

That is unless you think that a drunk causes LESS damage to society than other addicts do, and/or you believe that if one takes a hit of cocaine, one is compelled to rob a 7/Eleven. Frankly, I think that's what you believe.

I also challenge your assertion that most people who drink, don't do it to get buzzed. I believe that's EXACTLY why they drink.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Couple things... In the first place, pcb, crack, meth and all sorts of illegal drugs ARE available in the marketplace,

---

Most of those were developed because of the drug war. The "designer drugs" are attempts to stay ahead of criminal law and the FDA. By the way, it's PCp. Pcb is a dielectric fluid.

Quote:

---

I also challenge your assertion that most people who drink, don't do it to get buzzed. I believe that's EXACTLY why they drink.

---

This one I disagree with. Booze, maybe, but beers and wines simply taste better than the water in lots of places. Historically they're also safer to drink so there's a traditional aspect in there too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

I'm not avoiding the problem.
Our military actively combats the cartels . That is no secret.

---

Really? Is this a secret war? We don't hear reports of how a drone took out this group or that group

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Steve:

Then maybe you better open those right wing baby blues.

---

My baby blues could use a new pair of glasses. Makes it easier to find the beer I like so I can catch a b... I mean, makes it easier to read those wine labels.

Hillary thinks they just might demand your papers in AZ if you have a New York accent. Last I checked it was legal to be from New York wasn't it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Hillary thinks they just might demand your papers in AZ if you have a New York accent. Last I checked it was legal to be from New York wasn't it?

---

Legal - yes

Reasonable suspicion - yes (sarcasm)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Hillary thinks they just might demand your papers in AZ if you have a New York accent. Last I checked it was legal to be from New York wasn't it?

---

I'd better not go there then they might think I'm from the south

HEY!! Watzup with that ? We don't have no frikin accent in nuyawk!

Evita has reached her personal peter principle plateau .

Exie, I'm amazed that you would somehow link the Arizona rhubarb with drugs.

If a person is in a country illegally they are a criminal period. Why can't you wrap your head around that fact?

No other country in the world permits and condones illegal aliens residing in their country like the USA does on a regular basis. If you were in a European country long after your visa ran out you'd be there illegally and be a criminal subject to arrest and deportation. So what's so different about being in the USA if your visa ran out or you entered the country illegally? You would still be a criminal subject to arrest and deportation.

Try this baloney in Switzerland or Bosnia or Italy or Germany or Russia or Israel and you will find yourself arrested and detained for YEARS in a deportation camp awaiting enough other Americans to be detained and sent back in order to make it worth their while to spend the money on you and them. Some people have been in these deportation camps for literally years with no recouse to be either freed or mailed back to their original country.

Drugs are just a byproduct of the illegal alien problem.

Oh, I almost forgot. Why don't you try sneeking into North Korea? You'll be either shot, electrocuted by the electrified fences or blown up or torn up by their razor wire. And if you somehow make it through all that and want to live there illegally, you'll be arrested and detained for who knows how long. You'll be lucky if they give you anything to eat let alone a phone call back to the USA or even deported out of their hell hole prison.

Why not go to Iran and live there illegally and claim your rights there. They will caputure you and declare you are a spy. Regardless of whether you are a spy they will insist that you are. Then what?


The other countries of this world do NOT put up with illegal aliens living in their country. They don't "hug" illegal aliens and tell them they have "rights". What rights? They are treated as the criminals they are entering the country illegally or overstaying their visas.

Please name for me a sanctuary city in any other country other than the USA where illegal aliens can commit crimes and go "hide" without fear of arrest or deportation?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello tom:


Given those facts, it's my view, that if those drugs were legalized and regulated, AND we offered the addict treatment on demand, there would be a NET REDUCTION in drug use. Yes, there are a few who would take it up... But, I suggest that more addicts would quit, than people who would experiment....


excon

---

Legalized drugs, like hydrocodone or oxycodone or alprazolam or ritalin, are also abused. People think that just because they are not illegal, or that you could get them from a doctor or a parent's medicine cabinet, means they are safe to use however one pleases.

Alcohol is legal and regulated, I doubt that the percentage of people in a population that are addicted has changed since prohibition ended.


G&P