this part is just not true. mexican weed was harder to get across the border and harder to smuggle around. when production was localized the supply went way up. but they didn't need to localize production until the border started ramping up spot checks and drug dogs along the points of entry in the 90s.

if you stop Heroin from crossing the border there's a very real chance the amount of it in US hands could go up or at the very least be entirely unchanged. that's what happened with weed, all the literature is there but might be behind collegiate paywalls.

tl;dr the % chance to get caught with illegal drugs is vastly higher on the border than domestically. and therefore removing that risk could increase drug supply, as well as 1st world production techniques instead of columbians sweating over a table for 12 hours a day.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Jan 16 2019 12:18pm

very good

What a defeatist attitude. What do you suggest to do about drugs? Just surrender and legalize all of them, even the really dangerous, really hard stuff? Imho, there's a world of a difference between weed, and hard shit like heroin or cocaine.


Btw: large-scale poppy growing is not possible in the american climate, while weed can be grown in a greenhouse. So while it was possible to localize weed production, I actually dont think that the same would be possible with heroin.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Jan 16 2019 12:26pm

actually combat drugs and drug abuse, rather than putting 137 bandaids over the fucking wound. ive been asked what i'd do many times, and ive spent the time to post hundreds of bullet points over many posts.

as to heroin i would legalize medical pot to offset some pain med usage and attempt to more harshly regulate the pain pill market, to start with. i'd also go right into mexico and fuck the shit out of those cartels. a process that was underway before Trump came along and shut down all cooperation.

as to the poppy supply, lol. you think they'll have drug dogs at every port? sniffing every container (1000s per ship) off hundreds of ships a day?

water follows the path of least resistance, currently that's the border. plug a hole and a new one comes along.

as to the defeatist bullshit, i get that daily. try harder. i want to actually fix stuff, excuse me for not living with a "let's just try shit and see what happens, at least then we can pretend we did our best" attitude. this is what my undergrad was in, this is what all my term papers were in, etc. i know the issue, the wall is a fucking joke. period. on drugs anyway. it's only valid purpose is to stop foot traffic, that's it. disbelieve me all you want i frankly dont care. ive typed it all out with hundreds of sources provided in the past just to get the same bullshit from people incapable of nuance of planning ahead.

Nah.








You're welcome to provide contradictory evidence if you don't accept the evidence which suggests they commit fewer crimes. Your speculation does not constitute a convincing argument unless you can provide some evidentiary basis for it.



And far fewer crimes would be committed if we just got rid of all that natural-born citizens. Irrelevant point.



Accessibility of hard drugs has very little impact on addiction and overdose rates, and may even have an inverse relationship, where states with more lenient drug laws and more compassionate recovery options tend to have lower abuse and death rates. Either way, I see no reason why a wall would reduce illicit drug accessibility.



One can hope.



Immigrants are more likely to pursue higher education after emigrating than native-born citizens. Second generation immigrants exceed the educational level of native-born citizens, as well as perform better in school and attain higher-tier employment.



With the benefit of significant economic growth. More comprehensive welfare policies could pretty easily address this issue.

those charts are mostly consistent with what I said.




it's in the nature of things that crimes amongst undocumented immigrants go... wait for it... undocumented. *badummtsss*




A sovereign nation has to deal with its own people, while it can chose its immigrants. Relevant difference.



She Guevara 2024?!




Do you have a source for this? And is this referring to all immigrants pooled together, or does this statement still hold if applied to only illegal immigrants and their offspring? Because a lot of the legal immigrants are highly educated professionals who were specifically allowed in based on their merit. That the children of Rajesh, the Indian PhD holder who's working for Google in Silicon Valley, will reach high educational attainment is hardly surprising. Pooling them together with the children of Jose, the illegal immigrant who's picking vegetables in Central Valley at half the minimum wage and who's barely literate even in his native language, would confound and obscure the actual trends within two very different demographics.




The wealth of a nation largely depends on its GDP per capita, not on its nominal/raw GDP. Immigration is only beneficial in fiscal terms if it increases a country's productivity, or at least leaves it unaffected. Therefore, the simple rule of thumb is: well-educated immigrants = good, low-education immigrants = bad. In the United States, we have a lot of both. The positive contributions of legal immigrants should be acknowledged, but this does not reduce the negative impact of poverty immigrants from the south in the slightest.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Jan 16 2019 08:36pm

Can we do a before and after for France.

Hot chick

Hot chick being raped then beheaded.


Ooo, or beautiful quaint streets

Mattress tent covered piss city.

This post was edited by SBD on Jan 16 2019 09:26pm