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.
On December 17 2019 10:19 Wombat_NI wrote: If people are totally autonomous beings who make good decisions all the time why is marketing and advertising such a huge industry?
And this is where I bow out. It seems that discussions cannot be had. I bid you, good day.
On December 17 2019 10:19 Wombat_NI wrote: If people are totally autonomous beings who make good decisions all the time why is marketing and advertising such a huge industry?
And this is where I bow out. It seems that discussions cannot be had. I bid you, good day.
AKA ‘Discussions cant be had if I don’t like the discussion’
On December 17 2019 10:19 Wombat_NI wrote: If people are totally autonomous beings who make good decisions all the time why is marketing and advertising such a huge industry?
And this is where I bow out. It seems that discussions cannot be had. I bid you, good day.
AKA ‘Discussions cant be had if I don’t like the discussion’
You and your best friend are changing the topic of discussion. Marketing isn't only about illicit or legal substances being abused. It's about fashion, food, housing, etc. That you can make this even remotely comparable shows that you aren't discussing in good faith. So yes, I don't like the discussion because the "gotcha" moment has passed.
On December 17 2019 10:19 Wombat_NI wrote: If people are totally autonomous beings who make good decisions all the time why is marketing and advertising such a huge industry?
And this is where I bow out. It seems that discussions cannot be had. I bid you, good day.
AKA ‘Discussions cant be had if I don’t like the discussion’
You and your best friend are changing the topic of discussion. Marketing isn't only about illicit or legal substances being abused. It's about fashion, food, housing, etc. That you can make this even remotely comparable shows that you aren't discussing in good faith. So yes, I don't like the discussion because the "gotcha" moment has passed.
P6. Out.
Not sure what that was (EDIT: I get it after wombat's response) but you keep alluding to P6's departure from regularly posting here as if you know more about it than is public. Is that the case, or have you simply taken to using it uncritically?
On December 17 2019 10:19 Wombat_NI wrote: If people are totally autonomous beings who make good decisions all the time why is marketing and advertising such a huge industry?
And this is where I bow out. It seems that discussions cannot be had. I bid you, good day.
AKA ‘Discussions cant be had if I don’t like the discussion’
You and your best friend are changing the topic of discussion. Marketing isn't only about illicit or legal substances being abused. It's about fashion, food, housing, etc. That you can make this even remotely comparable shows that you aren't discussing in good faith. So yes, I don't like the discussion because the "gotcha" moment has passed.
P6. Out.
I don’t recall Danglars contributing here but I’ll double check.
There’s no ‘gotcha’ here. People have raised the issue that people will want to make money off legalisation, and encourage consumption if they can, if not kept in check.
As I’ve mentioned numerous times the US loves to throw unnecessary prescription meds down the throats of its citizens, because there are systemic reasons to do so. Also the only country I’ve ever seen that advertises serious drugs on television, although I’m sure others exist. I haven’t heard of an opioid painkiller crisis in other comparable nations, so systems do matter.
It’s entirely related to the discussion on legalisation or not to consider these externalities, and marketing entirely fits in to that.
On December 17 2019 10:19 Wombat_NI wrote: If people are totally autonomous beings who make good decisions all the time why is marketing and advertising such a huge industry?
Advertising works. But capitalism is not the root of all problems.
The way it is talked about is like a scape goat. If it was the USSR would have been an awesome place or some of the others. The issue is greed and selfishness. Switching the ISM does not deal with these issues. You need checks and balances to deal with it. We can't have intelligent discussion on this thread if we act like greed/capitalism are the same thing. And getting rid of capitalism does not get rid of it.
Otherwise all the discussions just devolve because people are using different definitions for the same words.
Works to do what?
Capitalism isn’t the root of these issues, if human nature is an alcoholic it’s just giving it a 10 glass of bourbon. It’s merely an accelerant for our worst impulses.
I’m not a particular fan of USSR style Communism either for the record.
If you’re designing a system, and your starting premise is ‘humans are greedy and selfish’ why the fuck would your system reward greed?
And people say socialists don’t understand human nature...
On December 16 2019 04:53 BerserkSword wrote: I, and a significant portion of americans (perhaps majority) dont want a "border judicial system" over a protected border. We want to put an end to the easy access the criminal elements of Mexico currently have into the country.
It won't.
And they know it won't (maybe you do too, I don't know you).
The wall is good for the far right because 1) it doesn't eliminate the threat, so you still have to vote for them because there is still a threat, and 2) it's a concrete thing that they can point to and pretend is an achievement, just in case someone were to look at their record and see that they have done basically nothing apart from give tax cuts to the rich and fuck over the working class in all of their decisions.
A wall prevents criminal elements from waltzing through.
I'd rather spend billions on a wall at the mexican border than giving israel billions per year so they can build a wall (which works btw) at their border
Why stop at building a wall at the mexcio boarder, the Canadian boarder is larger and less manned. Also at least to our own national security concerns Canada has produced more terrorists crossing the boarder into the US than Mexico, especially when you're talking Islamic terrorists as mexcio isn't really filled with Muslims.
The point is that the motivation of the wall is based on a false premise. It's not that there isn't dangers or what have you, it's the the claimed dangers dont match reality as they've been deeply exaggerated making the motivation for the wall questionable. Especially in context to Canada or our other ports of entry.
Please tell me youre joking.
Canada is not run by mafias that have access to massive amounts of drugs and that are armed to the teeth.
America has a drug and gang violence problem. While obviously not all of it is because of the mexican border, a lot of it is.
Legalization of those drugs would hurt the criminals a lot more than a wall. It would also generate a shit ton of money, by moving it from the black market economy to the above board economy creating many jobs and billions in tax dollars,(not to mention billions in savings from law enforcement, legal system and imprisonment) instead of costing billions and likely doing very little.
That's entirely unrealistic, though, and awful for a plethora of reasons.
Reasons which are?
Sorry for the extremely delayed response, but legalization of major drugs is unrealistic because there is no individual power that can say 'Heroin is legal now' without 50 footnotes on the conditions that apply to its legal use and the systems that would need to be put into place to make legal, safe use feasible. Nevermind the amount of comittee nd effort that would have to be put into deciding any of these things in the first place. People still turn their noses up at safe injection sites for 'serious drug' addicts. Legalizing those substances isn't even on the table, imo.
And awful is because we have simpler, less destructive substances than heroin or cocaine that -are- legal and people are still dumb enough to abuse them to self-destruction.
On December 16 2019 04:53 BerserkSword wrote: I, and a significant portion of americans (perhaps majority) dont want a "border judicial system" over a protected border. We want to put an end to the easy access the criminal elements of Mexico currently have into the country.
It won't.
And they know it won't (maybe you do too, I don't know you).
The wall is good for the far right because 1) it doesn't eliminate the threat, so you still have to vote for them because there is still a threat, and 2) it's a concrete thing that they can point to and pretend is an achievement, just in case someone were to look at their record and see that they have done basically nothing apart from give tax cuts to the rich and fuck over the working class in all of their decisions.
A wall prevents criminal elements from waltzing through.
I'd rather spend billions on a wall at the mexican border than giving israel billions per year so they can build a wall (which works btw) at their border
Why stop at building a wall at the mexcio boarder, the Canadian boarder is larger and less manned. Also at least to our own national security concerns Canada has produced more terrorists crossing the boarder into the US than Mexico, especially when you're talking Islamic terrorists as mexcio isn't really filled with Muslims.
The point is that the motivation of the wall is based on a false premise. It's not that there isn't dangers or what have you, it's the the claimed dangers dont match reality as they've been deeply exaggerated making the motivation for the wall questionable. Especially in context to Canada or our other ports of entry.
Please tell me youre joking.
Canada is not run by mafias that have access to massive amounts of drugs and that are armed to the teeth.
America has a drug and gang violence problem. While obviously not all of it is because of the mexican border, a lot of it is.
Legalization of those drugs would hurt the criminals a lot more than a wall. It would also generate a shit ton of money, by moving it from the black market economy to the above board economy creating many jobs and billions in tax dollars,(not to mention billions in savings from law enforcement, legal system and imprisonment) instead of costing billions and likely doing very little.
That's entirely unrealistic, though, and awful for a plethora of reasons.
Reasons which are?
Sorry for the extremely delayed response, but legalization of major drugs is unrealistic because there is no individual power that can say 'Heroin is legal now' without 50 footnotes on the conditions that apply to its legal use and the systems that would need to be put into place to make legal, safe use feasible. Nevermind the amount of comittee nd effort that would have to be put into deciding any of these things in the first place. People still turn their noses up at safe injection sites for 'serious drug' addicts. Legalizing those substances isn't even on the table, imo.
And awful is because we have simpler, less destructive substances than heroin or cocaine that -are- legal and people are still dumb enough to abuse them to self-destruction.
I don't think it is realistic to think it will happen soon, but I hope over time we will see that things like safe injection sites both admit we can't solve the problem through criminalizing and don't do enough because they keep all the money involved in drugs heading into the wrong way.
Legalizing and highly regulating creates a situation where we are saying "we understand the problem around drug addiction is that drug addiction is the symptom and we are going to use the money generated to actually deal with the causes".
Over time the hope is that no one wants to do heroine and those that do instead get the help they need, or always have it available to them.
I'm just curious if you see any parallels between your consistent appeals to "hope" and staunch opposition to revolutionary theory and danglars "thoughts and prayers" and opposition to gun legislation based on the implausibility resulting from opposition that is grounded in questionable hegemonic beliefs?
Funny you say that. Your opinions on Drugs and Guns is far right of me. It does appear you like fake socialist dictators much much much more than me. But when it comes to actual policy you are maybe slightly left of center for the US.
Funny how when pressed to defend their hatred of capitalism, ostensible 'socialists' revel their right-wing conservative individualism from which their views emerge.
On December 16 2019 04:53 BerserkSword wrote: I, and a significant portion of americans (perhaps majority) dont want a "border judicial system" over a protected border. We want to put an end to the easy access the criminal elements of Mexico currently have into the country.
It won't.
And they know it won't (maybe you do too, I don't know you).
The wall is good for the far right because 1) it doesn't eliminate the threat, so you still have to vote for them because there is still a threat, and 2) it's a concrete thing that they can point to and pretend is an achievement, just in case someone were to look at their record and see that they have done basically nothing apart from give tax cuts to the rich and fuck over the working class in all of their decisions.
A wall prevents criminal elements from waltzing through.
I'd rather spend billions on a wall at the mexican border than giving israel billions per year so they can build a wall (which works btw) at their border
Why stop at building a wall at the mexcio boarder, the Canadian boarder is larger and less manned. Also at least to our own national security concerns Canada has produced more terrorists crossing the boarder into the US than Mexico, especially when you're talking Islamic terrorists as mexcio isn't really filled with Muslims.
The point is that the motivation of the wall is based on a false premise. It's not that there isn't dangers or what have you, it's the the claimed dangers dont match reality as they've been deeply exaggerated making the motivation for the wall questionable. Especially in context to Canada or our other ports of entry.
Please tell me youre joking.
Canada is not run by mafias that have access to massive amounts of drugs and that are armed to the teeth.
America has a drug and gang violence problem. While obviously not all of it is because of the mexican border, a lot of it is.
Legalization of those drugs would hurt the criminals a lot more than a wall. It would also generate a shit ton of money, by moving it from the black market economy to the above board economy creating many jobs and billions in tax dollars,(not to mention billions in savings from law enforcement, legal system and imprisonment) instead of costing billions and likely doing very little.
That's entirely unrealistic, though, and awful for a plethora of reasons.
Reasons which are?
Sorry for the extremely delayed response, but legalization of major drugs is unrealistic because there is no individual power that can say 'Heroin is legal now' without 50 footnotes on the conditions that apply to its legal use and the systems that would need to be put into place to make legal, safe use feasible. Nevermind the amount of comittee nd effort that would have to be put into deciding any of these things in the first place. People still turn their noses up at safe injection sites for 'serious drug' addicts. Legalizing those substances isn't even on the table, imo.
And awful is because we have simpler, less destructive substances than heroin or cocaine that -are- legal and people are still dumb enough to abuse them to self-destruction.
I don't think it is realistic to think it will happen soon, but I hope over time we will see that things like safe injection sites both admit we can't solve the problem through criminalizing and don't do enough because they keep all the money involved in drugs heading into the wrong way.
Legalizing and highly regulating creates a situation where we are saying "we understand the problem around drug addiction is that drug addiction is the symptom and we are going to use the money generated to actually deal with the causes".
Over time the hope is that no one wants to do heroine and those that do instead get the help they need, or always have it available to them.
Am super curious about that last line. What do you see as things that make people want to do heroine? What do you see as them getting the help they need?
In my experience, and as a well-documented part of the addiction cycle, substance abuse commonly starts as an act of escapism. Given that this escapism is driven by physical or emotional pain, hoping that over time no-one 'wants to do heroine' seems extremely fruitless, which is why I'm curious about your perspective on the subject.
Getting help suffers the same issues, where "Getting help" would be everything from freeing the subject from a life of poverty to saving the subject from any level of abuse to preventing the subject from acting out or rebelling for 'less serious' reasons. Plus umpteen other sources of physical or emotional pain that may lead to escapism or a 'want to do heroine'. Again, I'm curious to hear your response because I see solving that problem as literally impossible short of cosmically forming a perfect utopia through sheer force of will.
On December 17 2019 09:05 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: ... The point is, regulating tobacco and alcohol and other substances is a precarious endeavor. The more you make it illegal, the more people want to rebel and do it. Prohibition was repealed for capitalists reasons, but it was obvious that it was never going away. There's too many ways to make it and distribute it. The same can't be said for harder drugs. It's harder to make cocaine/crack or meth safely and then get it out to the demand. Those need to be outlawed period.
Methamphetamines are literally prescribed by doctors for a variety of reasons. One of them is to help people with ADHD. Another is a weight loss pill.
You know I meant crystal meth and not the prescribed stuff. Come now friend.
It’s not just adderall. There’s a script for methampetamine too. It’s not commonly prescribed though because it’s literally meth. Drugs and medicine is a line based on context. I take amphetamines daily but for me they’re medicine.
On December 17 2019 07:40 Uldridge wrote: The horrible unethical thing is that alcohol is a major depressant, addictive and there's enough money behind it making it look sexy as fuck to drink it.
Yeah I mean, alcohol advertising has been slightly regulated but not nearly enough in my opinion.
The argument from some quarters is that ‘well alcohol and cigarettes are legal so why aren’t other things?’, when really I think we should be looking at the bad things and reducing their use rather than adding more bad things to the mix.
As was said earlier in the thread, if people require whatever drug to cope with everyday life then maybe the particular substance really isn’t the root problem.
Society sucks and this viewpoint is a huge reason why. The puritanical strain in the "progressive" wing combined with the all ready puritanical shit stains on "the right" are much worse than some dude doing some coke off a prostitutes tits. People should be more like Doug Stanhope, not less, or at the very least, not have their life destroyed by a criminal "justice" system.
Vices are not crimes, nor should the use of Government be in attempting to engineer society into some puritanical bullshit. Who likes Homeowner's Associations? No one right, because of controlling assholes...the Government is just that, but blown up to gigantic proportions.
On December 16 2019 05:06 BerserkSword wrote: [quote]
A wall prevents criminal elements from waltzing through.
I'd rather spend billions on a wall at the mexican border than giving israel billions per year so they can build a wall (which works btw) at their border
Why stop at building a wall at the mexcio boarder, the Canadian boarder is larger and less manned. Also at least to our own national security concerns Canada has produced more terrorists crossing the boarder into the US than Mexico, especially when you're talking Islamic terrorists as mexcio isn't really filled with Muslims.
The point is that the motivation of the wall is based on a false premise. It's not that there isn't dangers or what have you, it's the the claimed dangers dont match reality as they've been deeply exaggerated making the motivation for the wall questionable. Especially in context to Canada or our other ports of entry.
Please tell me youre joking.
Canada is not run by mafias that have access to massive amounts of drugs and that are armed to the teeth.
America has a drug and gang violence problem. While obviously not all of it is because of the mexican border, a lot of it is.
Legalization of those drugs would hurt the criminals a lot more than a wall. It would also generate a shit ton of money, by moving it from the black market economy to the above board economy creating many jobs and billions in tax dollars,(not to mention billions in savings from law enforcement, legal system and imprisonment) instead of costing billions and likely doing very little.
That's entirely unrealistic, though, and awful for a plethora of reasons.
Reasons which are?
Sorry for the extremely delayed response, but legalization of major drugs is unrealistic because there is no individual power that can say 'Heroin is legal now' without 50 footnotes on the conditions that apply to its legal use and the systems that would need to be put into place to make legal, safe use feasible. Nevermind the amount of comittee nd effort that would have to be put into deciding any of these things in the first place. People still turn their noses up at safe injection sites for 'serious drug' addicts. Legalizing those substances isn't even on the table, imo.
And awful is because we have simpler, less destructive substances than heroin or cocaine that -are- legal and people are still dumb enough to abuse them to self-destruction.
I don't think it is realistic to think it will happen soon, but I hope over time we will see that things like safe injection sites both admit we can't solve the problem through criminalizing and don't do enough because they keep all the money involved in drugs heading into the wrong way.
Legalizing and highly regulating creates a situation where we are saying "we understand the problem around drug addiction is that drug addiction is the symptom and we are going to use the money generated to actually deal with the causes".
Over time the hope is that no one wants to do heroine and those that do instead get the help they need, or always have it available to them.
I'm just curious if you see any parallels between your consistent appeals to "hope" and staunch opposition to revolutionary theory and danglars "thoughts and prayers" and opposition to gun legislation based on the implausibility resulting from opposition that is grounded in questionable hegemonic beliefs?
Funny you say that. Your opinions on Drugs and Guns is far right of me. It does appear you like fake socialist dictators much much much more than me. But when it comes to actual policy you are maybe slightly left of center for the US.
Funny how when pressed to defend their hatred of capitalism, ostensible 'socialists' revel their right-wing conservative individualism from which their views emerge.
lol wut?
Are your own words not clear enough to you?
Your positions are right of mine on how to deal with the drug program and guns. By your own logic that you just used, in a very insulting a disrespectful way, you are there for hiding right-wing conservative views . In fact you might actually be more of a authoritarian with a centrally planned economy than a true socialist.
I recognize them, but you cant just jam them in a strawman and march away triumphantly?
I wasn't even talking about you (or at least didn't have you in mind) when I was talking about that example of Zero's right wing conservative views.
Lastly I think it's been well established that you are among the worst possible people to trust when it comes to unsourced interpretations of positions I allegedly hold so I'm not going to engage beyond that there.
All I really wanted to know was whether or not you saw any parallels though? If you can't/won't offer your insight there, I'm not interested and we can go our separate ways again.
On December 15 2019 13:54 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: A lot of people think democrats want criminals entering the country. Guys like redlight get convinced by it.
What do you expect when Democrats fight tooth and nail to deny Trump building his wall simply because they don't want Trump to gain any political points or moral victories?
When democrats brag about spending 2 billion dollars on border security over the course of Obama's 8 years, while denouncing Trump who wants to pour 10+ billion into border security?
When democratic congresswoman representing El Paso writes border security in the form of physical barriers off as an "obsession"
For all intents and purposes, obstructing increased border security like this is supporting criminal elements entering the country. If youre keeping the status quo and blocking drastic efforts to reduce criminal influx, then you are supporting their ease of entry.
Democrats are acting in such a pitiful manner that it's absurd when taken at face value. From the moment Trump was elected it was nothing but pathetic attempts at trying tear him down. This impeachment farce to me looks like the culmination of Democrat butthurt. I can't believe that this is all happening tbh. I honestly dont know what the Democratic brass are doing. What is their end game here?
If they want to impeach him for something, at least accuse him for one of his actual unconstitutional abuses of power, like instance of military force in Syria (for which I believe he got bipartisan praise iirc). But no - they choose some nonsense about witholding military aid to Ukraine lol. Not surprising to be honest, since withholding aid = less $$$ for the military industrial complex and I guess impeachment is only saved for an act against the MI complex, rather than presidents like Bush and Obama who dwarfed trump in terms of abuse of power albeit to the benefit of the special interests.
Trump has abused his power since day one of entering office. Have you paid literally no attention during his Presidency?
One of his number one priorities has been siphoning money out of the government into his personal funds by using his golf resorts as often as possible.
Just admit you don't give a shit what Trump does because he's your guy and move on.
Maybe try to read my post again. Maybe slower this time.
I said that he has abused power and that they should impeach him for it. You just listed a possible crime he has committed and yet they are impeaching him over nonsense. You prove my point.
Just admit that you dont give a shit what the Democrats do because they are your guys and move on.
Your post also said that they were frothing at the mouth to find something to impeach him on, which makes it weird that they didn't go for the countless other opportunities that they had before this one (which, btw, is just as valid as any of the others).
Which is why I said I don't know what their end game is. Or perhaps they won't impeach him for an action that benefits special interests? Only for actions that harm special interests (like withholding military aid is bad for military industrial interests)
This whole thing crumbled hard for democrats, at face value. Quid Pro Quo --> bribery and extortion --> "abuse of power"
This thing is going to go out with a whimper, and will probably cost dems seats in congress, perhaps the 2020 election
Well I do know what their end game is. Their end game was to pretend to oppose Trump but do absolutely nothing, because having such an obvious and grotesque enemy drives engagement for them. People to their left kept pushing them to do their job but they refused, until finally Trump attacked one of them, Biden, instead of regular people, and that's when they finally, reluctantly, jumped into action.
See your issue is that you need them to be strong and uncompromising in order to justify your narrative of US politics, and they are undeniably, and very clearly, weak and conciliatory towards the right, as you point to yourself in your analysis of the situation.
I find it hard to believe that they would risk so much for so little. Pretending to oppose Trump while doing nothing alienates and discourages their base, strengthens Trump's base, makes them look incompetent and/or corrupt, and ultimately could cost elections. I think it would go beyond that
If they are defending something here, I find the more compelling case to be that they are primarily protecting special interests rather than biden. Trump is touching the military industry's precious weapons market, which is why they took such drastic actions for something relatively vanilla.
They laud Trump for unconstitutional airstrikes in syria in 2017 i believe it was, and then go full blown impeachment for withholding military aid to Ukraine - praise him for promoting military business and impeach him for curtailing military business.
Regardless of what the end game is, the democrats set up a circus imo and it will be seriously impressed if it doesnt blow up in their faces.
Most voters aren't going to notice, it's a calculation that you can make. Besides their donors also put pressure on them to favor certain pro-oligarchy positions, as does their underlying ideology (liberalism, not leftism).
It's never a massive mistake to bet on voters not noticing stuff. As an example, you seem to very much dislike the military industrial complex, and you keep associating that with democrats alone for no good reason.
Where have I associated the military industrial complex with democrats alone? I even mentioned Bush as a champion of it and Trump kowtowing to it as well (and yet neither of them were impeached for it despite acting unconstiutionally, same goes for obama) I have never said that democrats alone are the cohorts of the MI complex.
On December 16 2019 04:53 BerserkSword wrote: I, and a significant portion of americans (perhaps majority) dont want a "border judicial system" over a protected border. We want to put an end to the easy access the criminal elements of Mexico currently have into the country.
It won't.
And they know it won't (maybe you do too, I don't know you).
The wall is good for the far right because 1) it doesn't eliminate the threat, so you still have to vote for them because there is still a threat, and 2) it's a concrete thing that they can point to and pretend is an achievement, just in case someone were to look at their record and see that they have done basically nothing apart from give tax cuts to the rich and fuck over the working class in all of their decisions.
A wall prevents criminal elements from waltzing through.
I'd rather spend billions on a wall at the mexican border than giving israel billions per year so they can build a wall (which works btw) at their border
Why stop at building a wall at the mexcio boarder, the Canadian boarder is larger and less manned. Also at least to our own national security concerns Canada has produced more terrorists crossing the boarder into the US than Mexico, especially when you're talking Islamic terrorists as mexcio isn't really filled with Muslims.
The point is that the motivation of the wall is based on a false premise. It's not that there isn't dangers or what have you, it's the the claimed dangers dont match reality as they've been deeply exaggerated making the motivation for the wall questionable. Especially in context to Canada or our other ports of entry.
Please tell me youre joking.
Canada is not run by mafias that have access to massive amounts of drugs and that are armed to the teeth.
America has a drug and gang violence problem. While obviously not all of it is because of the mexican border, a lot of it is.
Legalization of those drugs would hurt the criminals a lot more than a wall. It would also generate a shit ton of money, by moving it from the black market economy to the above board economy creating many jobs and billions in tax dollars,(not to mention billions in savings from law enforcement, legal system and imprisonment) instead of costing billions and likely doing very little.
Seeing as I believe in the legalization of those drugs, I am not going to contest you there. It for sure would help, probably in spades.
I just don't see how a physical barrier does very little to protect against a bordering country run by cartels.
Some experts see the benefit of a trump-style wall. Trump style wall works in Israel. Anecdotal but myy friend who moved out west and is a border patrol agent agrees with the wall. I dont see why it's a bad thing, let alone why it will help criminals.
EPT
