|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On April 17 2019 07:11 KwarK wrote:
I think immigrants and smugglers may be confused in our friend’s head. An immigrant crosses the border once and then stays on this side, finding work, living their life. A smuggler makes a living from crossing the border over and over. If I were a cartel boss I wouldn’t be giving people trying to immigrate drugs to carry, that’d be nuts. It’s their first time trying to cross the border and you’re gonna let them carry 5kg of your cocaine. Really? What if they get lost? They probably don’t even speak English. And how do you even know them? What if they just make a run for it?
What you need is a smuggler. You wouldn’t trust some random with all your drugs.
How do you figure the US postal service in all of this? You ever hear of the US Postal service? You know how easy it is to mail drugs? Large amounts of drugs? You didn't think that through, did you?
1337
|
On April 17 2019 04:29 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2019 04:24 Danglars wrote:On April 17 2019 04:19 Sadist wrote:
The whole point of Medicare for all is to implement cost controls over the Medical industry. Theres no way to do it in the private sector because your health/life isnt bound by supply/demand when the alternative can be death. If you are having a heart attack and are on the operating table youd pay anything to have your life saved and sort out the cost later. That doesnt sound like something that can be driven by the market.
Two things
1)The idea that doctors will opt out of Medicare 4 all and only take patients with private insurance that pay more is ridiculous. They will have no patients to take in if everyone is covered by Medicare and go out of business if they operated that way. Not to mention theres plenty of hospitals and doctors offices today that cater almost exclusively to Medicare patients and they still make boatloads of money. Its not as if Medicare doesnt pay fair prices or even inflated prices to Doctors already.
2)This idea that care will be rationed is ridiculous. We already pay for the most expensive group of people to take care of (the elderly). Care is now rationed by your ability to afford treatment or your insurance company. To pretend as if rationing would be a new thing with Medicare for all is dishonest at best.
Lastly, this idea that Medicare for all will lead to increased wait times is morally bankrupt. If that did happen it means we need to fix the problem (whatever is causing the delay, not enough doctors, beurocracy, etc). Also, if the only reason this is happening not happening now is because theres a ton of people who cannot afford care that is morally reprehensible. It would effectively mean we are allowing those who dont have the means to seek care to be skipped in line by those who do.
I thought the point of Medicare for all was free health insurance coverage for everyone, subsidized by tax revenue? That is the desired effect yes but as a country it will allow us to stop Medical Care from eating up an increasingly larger chunk of the countries money. Also it isnt insurance but care. Theres a distinction.
That depends on who you talk to. Medicare is an insurance program restricted to the elderly, and some plans I’ve seen discussed simply expand eligibility. I don’t think positing a distinction and leaving it at that is useful at al.
|
Northern Ireland25875 Posts
On April 17 2019 07:26 semantics wrote:
We don't need to socialize housing just make it so owning multiple houses is really burdensome and get it so that most houses will depreciate in value.
Outside of that zoning laws might need to be tweaked depending on the are, even then it might just be excemptions for lower income targeted hosuing.
That can be done if all you do is request any house sold to meet modern code not be grandfathered in. Discouraging multi house ownership is a bit more difficult but a vacantcy tax might work.
Just make housing something worth more to live in than to own. It would suck for those who like money but I cant see how it would discourage new units being built.
If absolutely nothing else, vacancy tax, pump proceeds back directly into funding new housing or subsidising social housing or whatever.
Sitting on vacant properties, often owned by either the native or foreign mega wealthy, or vulture funds and just waiting until prices rise back up doesn’t really benefit anyone.
Your middle class landlord type, who is usually the hypothetical ‘but what about x person’ doesn’t have the funds to sit on property and not get anything back out of it for periods, so it wouldn’t really affect them.
As per multi-house ownership and whatnot, I mean yes but it’s a complete cultural no-go at least, it’s seen as an aspirational aim and I don’t think you can sell it at this time.
|
Northern Ireland25875 Posts
On April 17 2019 07:30 JimmiC wrote:I would be sad if housing prices depreciated since I have spent my whole working life trying to pay it off so when when I retire I can downsize and have no mortgage plus a nest egg. But if it is good for society I guess I would deal. Show nested quote +On April 17 2019 07:23 Sbrubbles wrote:On April 17 2019 07:11 KwarK wrote:
I think immigrants and smugglers may be confused in our friend’s head. An immigrant crosses the border once and then stays on this side, finding work, living their life. A smuggler makes a living from crossing the border over and over. If I were a cartel boss I wouldn’t be giving people trying to immigrate drugs to carry, that’d be nuts. It’s their first time trying to cross the border and you’re gonna let them carry 5k of your cocaine. Really? What if they get lost? They probably don’t even speak English. And how do you even know them? What if they just make a run for it?
What you need is a smuggler. You wouldn’t trust some random with all your drugs. Actually he's got things right. Immigrants are bringing in the drugs, so you need an increasing number of immigrants to supply the demand for drugs. And who defends opening the borders? That's right, the Democratic party is responsible for America's illegal drugs. Is it scary that I have no idea if this is sarcasm or not? Make a smiley face or something internet tone is impossible to read!
I’d prefer it if nobody had to ‘bite the bullet’ at all, I think there are ways around that.
If left as it is though, it’s the interests of those who want to pass something on to their kids, or downsize for retirement vs younger people who can’t even get on the ladder at all. And parents that do downsize are just downsizing, that nest egg is going to helping their kids get on the ladder, least people I know this isn’t a rare thing.
Not across the whole county, in the UK I believe in general this is more of a problem than in the States though.
And the UK culturally is way more house ownership obsessed than Europe, so we don’t have so much of a secure long-term rental tradition either.
|
www.princetonpolicy.com
In 2010, then Arizona Governor Jan Brewer took some heat for saying that a majority of illegals were drug mules.
In fact, the numbers bear her out. We can impute the number of drug carriers through the volumes of drugs seized by Border Patrol and estimated seizure rates; as well as the number of illegal border crossers arrested and assumed apprehension rates. In 2010, for example, Border Patrol arrested 450,000 crossers representing 1.1 million crossing attempts for the year.
In addition, Border Patrol seized 3.4 million lbs of drugs, virtually all marijuana. We estimate interdiction rates at 14% (12-15% range), implying smugglers tried to bring in an astounding 23 - 29 million pounds of drugs over the border away from official points of entry in 2010
[...]
Jim runs a 55,000 acre ranch of which 15 miles constitutes the border with Mexico. Most of the crossers coming over his property appear to be carrying backpacks presumed to be filled with drugs. If so, seizure rates may be substantially lower than believed in our analysis (and smuggling rates correspondingly higher).
I would also add that drug mules are a combination of professionals -- who will make return trips -- and economic migrants, who carry drugs opportunistically one-time to pay their coyote fees. By definition, the share of economic migrants carrying drugs will be lower than the total percentage of smugglers in all crossers. Notwithstanding, our current estimates still suggest that more than half of economic migrants carried drugs in 2010, falling to about 10% in 2018.
Y’all muckity mucks yucking it up about illegal immigrants carrying drugs could have spent some time looking into it. It does appear to be marijuana though ... and it appears to have fallen since 2010. But the idea in itself is not as crazy as some (Kwark) pretend that it is
User was warned for this post.
|
Northern Ireland25875 Posts
It appears to have fallen? From half of migrants to 10% in nine years with no vague hypothesis there never mind anything substantive as to why?
With a single anecdote from a rancher, and they have backpacks so we presume they’re carrying drugs?
I mean come on
|
United States43136 Posts
It’s weird that you bolded the out of date number, rather than the current number which agrees with my take on the situation. It also appears that they’re getting caught a lot which again matches my expectation, the cartel aren’t about to give a backpack with 20kgs of pure cocaine to a guy walking across a ranch. Those backpacks are low value stuff. Smuggling is the real source.
|
Northern Ireland25875 Posts
Some carry backpacks, others I assume are good people.
I have zero idea how they came to their numbers, either their website write-ups badly reflects some diligent and well-conducted research and interpretation of data, or it doesn’t exist at all.
I personally veer towards the latter, although not conclusively. As they seem to be indulging in the lovely and sadly common practice of attaching a name like Princeton to confer legitimacy despite no such connection seemingly existing I’m even more skepticism
|
On April 17 2019 07:38 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2019 04:29 Sadist wrote:On April 17 2019 04:24 Danglars wrote:On April 17 2019 04:19 Sadist wrote:
The whole point of Medicare for all is to implement cost controls over the Medical industry. Theres no way to do it in the private sector because your health/life isnt bound by supply/demand when the alternative can be death. If you are having a heart attack and are on the operating table youd pay anything to have your life saved and sort out the cost later. That doesnt sound like something that can be driven by the market.
Two things
1)The idea that doctors will opt out of Medicare 4 all and only take patients with private insurance that pay more is ridiculous. They will have no patients to take in if everyone is covered by Medicare and go out of business if they operated that way. Not to mention theres plenty of hospitals and doctors offices today that cater almost exclusively to Medicare patients and they still make boatloads of money. Its not as if Medicare doesnt pay fair prices or even inflated prices to Doctors already.
2)This idea that care will be rationed is ridiculous. We already pay for the most expensive group of people to take care of (the elderly). Care is now rationed by your ability to afford treatment or your insurance company. To pretend as if rationing would be a new thing with Medicare for all is dishonest at best.
Lastly, this idea that Medicare for all will lead to increased wait times is morally bankrupt. If that did happen it means we need to fix the problem (whatever is causing the delay, not enough doctors, beurocracy, etc). Also, if the only reason this is happening not happening now is because theres a ton of people who cannot afford care that is morally reprehensible. It would effectively mean we are allowing those who dont have the means to seek care to be skipped in line by those who do.
I thought the point of Medicare for all was free health insurance coverage for everyone, subsidized by tax revenue? That is the desired effect yes but as a country it will allow us to stop Medical Care from eating up an increasingly larger chunk of the countries money. Also it isnt insurance but care. Theres a distinction. That depends on who you talk to. Medicare is an insurance program restricted to the elderly, and some plans I’ve seen discussed simply expand eligibility. I don’t think positing a distinction and leaving it at that is useful at al.
Insurance only provides care after you reach your deductible, which if you are poor and you have to buy a bad plan is really high.
Care means if you get sick you can go to the doctor no matter what and pay a 1$ co pay. Care means that you actually get care for what money you put into the system vs. Insurance or only getting care if you're practically dead.
|
On April 17 2019 08:11 IgnE wrote:www.princetonpolicy.comShow nested quote +In 2010, then Arizona Governor Jan Brewer took some heat for saying that a majority of illegals were drug mules.
In fact, the numbers bear her out. We can impute the number of drug carriers through the volumes of drugs seized by Border Patrol and estimated seizure rates; as well as the number of illegal border crossers arrested and assumed apprehension rates. In 2010, for example, Border Patrol arrested 450,000 crossers representing 1.1 million crossing attempts for the year.
In addition, Border Patrol seized 3.4 million lbs of drugs, virtually all marijuana. We estimate interdiction rates at 14% (12-15% range), implying smugglers tried to bring in an astounding 23 - 29 million pounds of drugs over the border away from official points of entry in 2010
[...]
Jim runs a 55,000 acre ranch of which 15 miles constitutes the border with Mexico. Most of the crossers coming over his property appear to be carrying backpacks presumed to be filled with drugs. If so, seizure rates may be substantially lower than believed in our analysis (and smuggling rates correspondingly higher).
I would also add that drug mules are a combination of professionals -- who will make return trips -- and economic migrants, who carry drugs opportunistically one-time to pay their coyote fees. By definition, the share of economic migrants carrying drugs will be lower than the total percentage of smugglers in all crossers. Notwithstanding, our current estimates still suggest that more than half of economic migrants carried drugs in 2010, falling to about 10% in 2018. Y’all muckity mucks yucking it up about illegal immigrants carrying drugs could have spent some time looking into it. It does appear to be marijuana though ... and it appears to have fallen since 2010. But the idea in itself is not as crazy as some (Kwark) pretend that it is dropping from 50 to 10% in 8 years. Apparently.
Yet drug seizures by border patrol from 2014 to 2018 don't follow a similar trend.
www.cbp.gov
How weird.
I'm going to call bullshit on their estimates without some better proof.
|
So in 2010 it was a problem that was addressed and now it’s not? How may states of emergency did Obama declare to handle this massive problem back then? Zero? Wow.
|
On April 17 2019 08:32 ShambhalaWar wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2019 07:38 Danglars wrote:On April 17 2019 04:29 Sadist wrote:On April 17 2019 04:24 Danglars wrote:On April 17 2019 04:19 Sadist wrote:
The whole point of Medicare for all is to implement cost controls over the Medical industry. Theres no way to do it in the private sector because your health/life isnt bound by supply/demand when the alternative can be death. If you are having a heart attack and are on the operating table youd pay anything to have your life saved and sort out the cost later. That doesnt sound like something that can be driven by the market.
Two things
1)The idea that doctors will opt out of Medicare 4 all and only take patients with private insurance that pay more is ridiculous. They will have no patients to take in if everyone is covered by Medicare and go out of business if they operated that way. Not to mention theres plenty of hospitals and doctors offices today that cater almost exclusively to Medicare patients and they still make boatloads of money. Its not as if Medicare doesnt pay fair prices or even inflated prices to Doctors already.
2)This idea that care will be rationed is ridiculous. We already pay for the most expensive group of people to take care of (the elderly). Care is now rationed by your ability to afford treatment or your insurance company. To pretend as if rationing would be a new thing with Medicare for all is dishonest at best.
Lastly, this idea that Medicare for all will lead to increased wait times is morally bankrupt. If that did happen it means we need to fix the problem (whatever is causing the delay, not enough doctors, beurocracy, etc). Also, if the only reason this is happening not happening now is because theres a ton of people who cannot afford care that is morally reprehensible. It would effectively mean we are allowing those who dont have the means to seek care to be skipped in line by those who do.
I thought the point of Medicare for all was free health insurance coverage for everyone, subsidized by tax revenue? That is the desired effect yes but as a country it will allow us to stop Medical Care from eating up an increasingly larger chunk of the countries money. Also it isnt insurance but care. Theres a distinction. That depends on who you talk to. Medicare is an insurance program restricted to the elderly, and some plans I’ve seen discussed simply expand eligibility. I don’t think positing a distinction and leaving it at that is useful at al. Insurance only provides care after you reach your deductible, which if you are poor and you have to buy a bad plan is really high. Care means if you get sick you can go to the doctor no matter what and pay a 1$ co pay. Care means that you actually get care for what money you put into the system vs. Insurance or only getting care if you're practically dead.
I don’t see any purpose to posting this. High deductible health insurance has existed for ages to bring down the premium you pay. That’s a trade off, not a separation between something called care and something called insurance. The size of your deductible and cost of your premium are not useful metrics to set any kind of dividing line between care and insurance. Nothing in your post references Medicare, nor varying implementations dubbed Medicare for all, nor any authority. I only know how you prefer to use the terms, as fuzzy of a distinction as it ends up being.
|
On April 17 2019 08:22 KwarK wrote:
It’s weird that you bolded the out of date number, rather than the current number which agrees with my take on the situation. It also appears that they’re getting caught a lot which again matches my expectation, the cartel aren’t about to give a backpack with 20kgs of pure cocaine to a guy walking across a ranch. Those backpacks are low value stuff. Smuggling is the real source.
No it’s not weird. The objection is to your mocking of the idea in principle. The cartels apparently have done that and would do it again under the right conditions.
Saying that “smuggling is the real source” sounds vaguely like “Trump didn’t really campaign on tax cuts” to me
|
On April 17 2019 08:48 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2019 08:22 KwarK wrote:
It’s weird that you bolded the out of date number, rather than the current number which agrees with my take on the situation. It also appears that they’re getting caught a lot which again matches my expectation, the cartel aren’t about to give a backpack with 20kgs of pure cocaine to a guy walking across a ranch. Those backpacks are low value stuff. Smuggling is the real source. No it’s not weird. The objection is to your mocking of the idea in principle. The cartels apparently have done that and would do it again under the right conditions.
It was remarkably cheap, plus you could charge your mule a premium/make them a slave for helping him (sometimes her) get into the the US. It wasn't so much a cartel thing as it was (and probably still is) a small time/medium sized gang thing from my limited experience.
|
Trump is attempting to de-facto appropriate the constitutional power to declare war or something approximately equal to that. The constitution is extremely clear that deciding when the US is involved in a war is up to Congress.
It’s the second veto of President Trump’s administration. The resolution, which passed the House earlier this month and the Senate last month, would have ended U.S. support for the Saudi-led military campaign in Yemen.
“This resolution is an unnecessary, dangerous attempt to weaken my constitutional authorities, endangering the lives of American citizens and brave service members, both today and in the future,” Trump said in a statement.
www.washingtonpost.com
|
A great deal of the chinese fentynal is mailed .
And cartels remain a gigantic part of the problem.
WASHINGTON – DEA Acting Administrator Uttam Dhillon today announced results of the 2018 National Drug Threat Assessment, which outlines the threats posed to the United States by domestic and international drug trafficking and the abuse of illicit drugs.
“This report underscores the scope and magnitude of the ongoing opioid crisis in the United States,” said Acting Administrator Dhillon. “The information in the report represents data and critical intelligence from our law enforcement partners that was gathered over the past year. This report highlights the necessity of using all the tools at our disposal to fight this epidemic, and we must remain steadfast in our mission to combat all dangerous drugs of abuse.”
Among the key 2018 NDTA findings:
Controlled prescription drugs remain responsible for the largest number of overdose deaths of any illicit drug class since 2001. These drugs are the second most commonly abused substance. Traffickers are now disguising other opioids as controlled prescription drugs to gain access to this market. (pages 1-10)
Heroin-related drug-poisoning deaths almost doubled between 2013 and 2016. This has been exacerbated by the increased adulteration of heroin with fentanyl and other synthetic opioids. Heroin available in U.S. markets is primarily sourced from Mexico, where opium poppy cultivation and heroin production have both increased significantly in recent years. (pages 11-20)
Of all opioids, the abuse of illicit fentanyl and other synthetic opioids has led to the greatest number of deaths in the United States. Fentanyl is increasingly available in the form of counterfeit prescription pills marketed for illicit street sales, and also sold by traffickers on its own, without the presence of other drugs. (pages 21-37)
Mexican transnational criminal organizations, including the Sinaloa Cartel and Jalisco New Generation Cartel, remain the greatest criminal drug threat in the United States. The cartels are the principal wholesale drug sources for domestic gangs responsible for street-level distribution. (pages 97-99)
National and neighborhood-based street gangs and prison gangs continue to dominate the market for the street sales and distribution of illicit drugs in their respective territories throughout the country. Drug trafficking remains the major income source for gangs. (pages 107-121)
Even if you think less is coming over the border (number are fuzzy because what you don't catch you can't measure), cartel members are still a massive problem as in-country distributors.
|
On April 17 2019 08:57 Introvert wrote:A great deal of the chinese fentynal is mailed . And cartels remain a gigantic part of the problem. Show nested quote +WASHINGTON – DEA Acting Administrator Uttam Dhillon today announced results of the 2018 National Drug Threat Assessment, which outlines the threats posed to the United States by domestic and international drug trafficking and the abuse of illicit drugs.
“This report underscores the scope and magnitude of the ongoing opioid crisis in the United States,” said Acting Administrator Dhillon. “The information in the report represents data and critical intelligence from our law enforcement partners that was gathered over the past year. This report highlights the necessity of using all the tools at our disposal to fight this epidemic, and we must remain steadfast in our mission to combat all dangerous drugs of abuse.”
Among the key 2018 NDTA findings:
Controlled prescription drugs remain responsible for the largest number of overdose deaths of any illicit drug class since 2001. These drugs are the second most commonly abused substance. Traffickers are now disguising other opioids as controlled prescription drugs to gain access to this market. (pages 1-10)
Heroin-related drug-poisoning deaths almost doubled between 2013 and 2016. This has been exacerbated by the increased adulteration of heroin with fentanyl and other synthetic opioids. Heroin available in U.S. markets is primarily sourced from Mexico, where opium poppy cultivation and heroin production have both increased significantly in recent years. (pages 11-20)
Of all opioids, the abuse of illicit fentanyl and other synthetic opioids has led to the greatest number of deaths in the United States. Fentanyl is increasingly available in the form of counterfeit prescription pills marketed for illicit street sales, and also sold by traffickers on its own, without the presence of other drugs. (pages 21-37)
Mexican transnational criminal organizations, including the Sinaloa Cartel and Jalisco New Generation Cartel, remain the greatest criminal drug threat in the United States. The cartels are the principal wholesale drug sources for domestic gangs responsible for street-level distribution. (pages 97-99)
National and neighborhood-based street gangs and prison gangs continue to dominate the market for the street sales and distribution of illicit drugs in their respective territories throughout the country. Drug trafficking remains the major income source for gangs. (pages 107-121)
I'd just add that there's typically a white middleman (or Chinese with fent) before it goes to a domestic gang. It's generally safer for all parties to deal with a broker than to try to handle it straight across. This doesn't apply as much to the large cartels with networks in the US. I don't have data or a study just anecdotal though so take it for what one will.
USPS is also a popular choice for mailing drugs (domestically) since it has more 4th amendment protections than private couriers.
|
On April 17 2019 08:11 IgnE wrote:www.princetonpolicy.comShow nested quote +In 2010, then Arizona Governor Jan Brewer took some heat for saying that a majority of illegals were drug mules.
In fact, the numbers bear her out. We can impute the number of drug carriers through the volumes of drugs seized by Border Patrol and estimated seizure rates; as well as the number of illegal border crossers arrested and assumed apprehension rates. In 2010, for example, Border Patrol arrested 450,000 crossers representing 1.1 million crossing attempts for the year.
In addition, Border Patrol seized 3.4 million lbs of drugs, virtually all marijuana. We estimate interdiction rates at 14% (12-15% range), implying smugglers tried to bring in an astounding 23 - 29 million pounds of drugs over the border away from official points of entry in 2010
[...]
Jim runs a 55,000 acre ranch of which 15 miles constitutes the border with Mexico. Most of the crossers coming over his property appear to be carrying backpacks presumed to be filled with drugs. If so, seizure rates may be substantially lower than believed in our analysis (and smuggling rates correspondingly higher).
I would also add that drug mules are a combination of professionals -- who will make return trips -- and economic migrants, who carry drugs opportunistically one-time to pay their coyote fees. By definition, the share of economic migrants carrying drugs will be lower than the total percentage of smugglers in all crossers. Notwithstanding, our current estimates still suggest that more than half of economic migrants carried drugs in 2010, falling to about 10% in 2018. Y’all muckity mucks yucking it up about illegal immigrants carrying drugs could have spent some time looking into it. It does appear to be marijuana though ... and it appears to have fallen since 2010. But the idea in itself is not as crazy as some (Kwark) pretend that it is
That second to last paragraph in the quote is a masterpiece. Jimbo sees people with backpacks from his ranch and naturally they must be filled with drugs because who needs to bring any other possessions when moving to a different country.
Anyway, there's a major flaw in their vague methodology. The numbers they used for their estimate are the weight of drugs seized by Border Patrol and the number of illegal border crossers caught by Border Patrol. The biggest hauls in seized drugs are from vehicles that try to pass through customs. I do not believe for a second that 1500 tons of marijuana were seized in 2010 from the backpacks and plastic bags of people skirting customs.
|
Northern Ireland25875 Posts
On April 17 2019 08:54 Kyadytim wrote:Trump is attempting to de-facto appropriate the constitutional power to declare war or something approximately equal to that. The constitution is extremely clear that deciding when the US is involved in a war is up to Congress. Show nested quote +It’s the second veto of President Trump’s administration. The resolution, which passed the House earlier this month and the Senate last month, would have ended U.S. support for the Saudi-led military campaign in Yemen.
“This resolution is an unnecessary, dangerous attempt to weaken my constitutional authorities, endangering the lives of American citizens and brave service members, both today and in the future,” Trump said in a statement. www.washingtonpost.com
*Sighs*
I can’t really think of a level that this doesn’t annoy me on. I mean I never trusted Trump on anything the man said, the one thing I did like at least about his campaign rhetoric was stuff like not bending over for the Saudis
|
United States43136 Posts
On April 17 2019 08:57 Introvert wrote:A great deal of the chinese fentynal is mailed . And cartels remain a gigantic part of the problem. Show nested quote +WASHINGTON – DEA Acting Administrator Uttam Dhillon today announced results of the 2018 National Drug Threat Assessment, which outlines the threats posed to the United States by domestic and international drug trafficking and the abuse of illicit drugs.
“This report underscores the scope and magnitude of the ongoing opioid crisis in the United States,” said Acting Administrator Dhillon. “The information in the report represents data and critical intelligence from our law enforcement partners that was gathered over the past year. This report highlights the necessity of using all the tools at our disposal to fight this epidemic, and we must remain steadfast in our mission to combat all dangerous drugs of abuse.”
Among the key 2018 NDTA findings:
Controlled prescription drugs remain responsible for the largest number of overdose deaths of any illicit drug class since 2001. These drugs are the second most commonly abused substance. Traffickers are now disguising other opioids as controlled prescription drugs to gain access to this market. (pages 1-10)
Heroin-related drug-poisoning deaths almost doubled between 2013 and 2016. This has been exacerbated by the increased adulteration of heroin with fentanyl and other synthetic opioids. Heroin available in U.S. markets is primarily sourced from Mexico, where opium poppy cultivation and heroin production have both increased significantly in recent years. (pages 11-20)
Of all opioids, the abuse of illicit fentanyl and other synthetic opioids has led to the greatest number of deaths in the United States. Fentanyl is increasingly available in the form of counterfeit prescription pills marketed for illicit street sales, and also sold by traffickers on its own, without the presence of other drugs. (pages 21-37)
Mexican transnational criminal organizations, including the Sinaloa Cartel and Jalisco New Generation Cartel, remain the greatest criminal drug threat in the United States. The cartels are the principal wholesale drug sources for domestic gangs responsible for street-level distribution. (pages 97-99)
National and neighborhood-based street gangs and prison gangs continue to dominate the market for the street sales and distribution of illicit drugs in their respective territories throughout the country. Drug trafficking remains the major income source for gangs. (pages 107-121) Even if you think less is coming over the border (number are fuzzy because what you don't catch you can't measure), cartel members are still a massive problem as in-country distributors.
Sure, it’s just the idea that illegal immigrants are used to carry the product that doesn’t make sense to me. Illegal immigrants are comparatively hard to smuggle. They’re sensitive to temperature, are unsuited to storage, need food and water, produce waste, and don’t do well when vacuum packed. The margin per kg of human is also way lower than on other illicit cargo. By having an illegal immigrant hold your illegal drugs you’re driving up the difficulty. You add all the problems of moving humans because the combined package of human + drugs forces you to move it in a way that protects the most fragile element, the human.
If I wanted to move hard drugs I’d do it the way it was done in Breaking Bad, integrate them into the supply chain of a crossborder business, hidden as a tiny proportion of the otherwise legitimate cargo. Vacuum sealed bags at the bottom of a barrel of chicken carcasses on a truck that regularly crosses the border with no illicit cargo.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
