Show Us Your Papers

[CaneBrain 95]

Until you cure "people have murderous rage", you're going to have murders.

You have to make divisions somewhere. We can't afford to lock up everyone. Also, imagine how much better we could do at preventing violent crime if the police did not have to focus much time on narcotics.

[Balloon guy 158]

You have to make divisions somewhere. We can't afford to lock up everyone. Also, imagine how much better we could do at preventing violent crime if the police did not have to focus much time on narcotics.

What about the amount of narcotics we could prevent if the police ignore violent crimes

[CaneBrain 95]

What about the amount of narcotics we could prevent if the police ignore violent crimes

I see you've been to Miami....

[Ninjafoo 0]

Given a choice between not getting high, and getting high unsafely, people will choose unsafe.Given a choice between 'safe and legal' and 'unsafe and illegal', people will choose safe and legal.Meth is not a safe drug, and no manufacturer that is subject to liability laws would produce it.

Lol wut? Thinking Meth exists only because there is a war on drugs is beyond absurd. I think it's pretty clear that Meth heads don't give a shit about the law and have access to pot and other drugs, so would you please tell me why they chose Meth? The least you could do is try and make your stance have a tiny bit of logic behind it.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

Self edit. Decided it wasn't necessary.

[Balloon guy 158]

I see you've been to Miami....

HaHa

[SweetDee 0]

I.....what a mess. I went to Food City today because they always have good prices on Avocado and not one Mexican, and trust me I was the only white guy within a mile, not one Mexican looked scared, hunted, rounded up, violated, bamboozled, stick any word you want in here, they were all cool. They will be fine, some are scared and upset, sure, no criminal wants to face the music but in this case most of them seem to get that this is a step in the right direction as in talking about an actual solution, streamlining the process. An article today actually pointed out the fact that this is great for Arizona, bad for surrounding states, because those which want to continue avoiding becoming legal will just leave the state. So, San Fransisco, you want to boycott? Alright, they are coming to you.As far as the guy going on and on about legalizing drugs and what not, I get where you are coming from, I can dig it, but since reality still holds sway for some of us can it hippie. What you are looking for ain't happening any time soon, hell, you just might want to move to a different country, it's not happening in this lifetime.As far as the guy that made the point about some using fake SSN's or duplicates, taxes are not being paid. Medicare and Social Security, sure, but not State or Federal taxes. The only thing that really benefits is sales tax, and even then so much of what is made gets shipped out to Mexico it's still more harmful then good.Something that struck me today- why was Shakira here protesting? Shouldn't she be in Mexico protesting what a ****ed up place it is? Oh, they would kill her? Hmmm, fair point I guess. Hey, maybe advising people to obey the law in the land they want to run too might be the way to go, maybe that. That's it, I am never enjoying "Hips don't lie" again.

[jmkiser 0]

As far as the guy going on and on about legalizing drugs and what not, I get where you are coming from, I can dig it, but since reality still holds sway for some of us can it hippie. What you are looking for ain't happening any time soon, hell, you just might want to move to a different country, it's not happening in this lifetime.

You just gave up any possibility of anyone taking you seriously with this paragraph.Especially calling hb a hippieLOL

[jmkiser 0]

Lol wut? Thinking Meth exists only because there is a war on drugs is beyond absurd. I think it's pretty clear that Meth heads don't give a shit about the law and have access to pot and other drugs, so would you please tell me why they chose Meth? The least you could do is try and make your stance have a tiny bit of logic behind it.

....... logic? Like all of the amazing insight you've laid into this discussion? People on your side of the argument are even separating themselves from you earlier on in the thread. Oh well..Hypothetically speaking, let's say narcotics have always been legal. The likelihood of meth being a popular drug would be next to 0. With legality comes substance regulation and meth wouldn't fit the bill. There would be better, safer highs from many other products (with government tested approval) and generally no one would touch meth with a 10 foot pole. Also, in this world, there would be a higher level of education on these products with legality and inclusion in the private sector. The average Joe, currently, could tell you a few things about alcohol and cigarettes, but will likely not know or give you tons of misinformation (heard through the grapevine) about marijuana (assuming the average Joe is a law-abiding citizen... meaning he's not a user and likely not part of the drug culture)

[Jeepster80125 0]

Actually, lots of laws have racial classifications.....they have to overcome what is called "strict scrutiny" which basically means that the government has to show that there is a "compelling interest" in passing the law and that there is "no better means" by which to do so.No officer is going to reasonably suspect a white person of being an illegal immigrant (in Arizona anyway). That would be fairly silly. Therefore, this law will inevitably impact different races in different ways. That automatically makes it a law judged by strict scrutiny.State laws that relate to alienage always lose. If you want to research that, you can, or you can just trust me. Again, I dont know if that is good or bad but that is how it is. Between this and all the states fighting Obamacare in court we have a lot of Republicans wasting a LOT of money on futile gestures.Then again Democrats are pretending you can cover an extra 32 million people and save money. I give up?

I'm glad that you acknowledge this.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

....... logic? Like all of the amazing insight you've laid into this discussion? People on your side of the argument are even separating themselves from you earlier on in the thread. Oh well..Hypothetically speaking, let's say narcotics have always been legal. The likelihood of meth being a popular drug would be next to 0. With legality comes substance regulation and meth wouldn't fit the bill. There would be better, safer highs from many other products (with government tested approval) and generally no one would touch meth with a 10 foot pole. Also, in this world, there would be a higher level of education on these products with legality and inclusion in the private sector. The average Joe, currently, could tell you a few things about alcohol and cigarettes, but will likely not know or give you tons of misinformation (heard through the grapevine) about marijuana (assuming the average Joe is a law-abiding citizen... meaning he's not a user and likely not part of the drug culture)

The point is there is a market for drugs and people have options and have chosen drugs. Meth users have other options and have chosen Meth. You're stretching the Willing Suspension of Disbelief in your hypothetical. Some people seem to want to believe that drug usage is a rational choice. For many recreational users, I guess it is. But for Christ's Sake, people huff paint to get high. Do you really believe that someone who thinks that Gold Paint is a better high than Red is making a rational choice? The casual recreational users by and large don't stray from their drug of choice - especially weed. They're as educated as they're going to be on their drug. To think that they are going to benefit from some golden age of enlightenment is a Fantasy.

[Balloon guy 158]

....... logic? Like all of the amazing insight you've laid into this discussion? People on your side of the argument are even separating themselves from you earlier on in the thread. Oh well..Hypothetically speaking, let's say narcotics have always been legal. The likelihood of meth being a popular drug would be next to 0. With legality comes substance regulation and meth wouldn't fit the bill. There would be better, safer highs from many other products (with government tested approval) and generally no one would touch meth with a 10 foot pole. Also, in this world, there would be a higher level of education on these products with legality and inclusion in the private sector. The average Joe, currently, could tell you a few things about alcohol and cigarettes, but will likely not know or give you tons of misinformation (heard through the grapevine) about marijuana (assuming the average Joe is a law-abiding citizen... meaning he's not a user and likely not part of the drug culture)

This makes no sense.People are not doing meth now because all drugs are illegal so we might as well do the ones that are really bad for you.The minute they legalize meth, those tweekers are not going to say; "Well, now the danger is gone, let's switch to a nice Pinot Noir from the Russian River to get our buzz"Lumping all drugs into one "Let's stop the insane war on drugs" makes your side a losing side. But once you begin pointing out that some drugs should be illegal, you have lost your argument as well, because now you are not arguing for freedom, you are just sliding the scale a little to the right from where the scale is now, which everyone can do with equal logic and authority.And when it comes to misinformation about drugs, there is no logical reason to assume that a person who is willing to break the law in order to fulfill a selfish pleasure is therefore more knowledgeable about the health risks and long term effects from ingestion of the burning of a plant's leaves, than a person who obeys the laws and likes to drink Coors.

[Balloon guy 158]

I'm glad that you acknowledge this.

Deep down Cane wants to be a republican, but his new profession requires him to ignore his personal feelings and 'follow the money'.

[Balloon guy 158]

Think about this. What is a coyote route? It is a route to bring in people or drugs illegally. So they created a law to prevent a crime that is only even possible if the law exists? How prescient of them.

They didn't 'create a law', they are enforcing a law. It was already illegal to be an illegal immigrant.Would you also be logically consistent and have the FDA become just the FA, allowing pharmaceuticals to sell all drugs to anyone regardless of their side effects?Can Pfizer make Meth? And package is so we can all enjoy the taxes this will generate?Because if a person chooses to ingest a formerly prescription and/or illegal narcotic at a self prescribed rate, than the government has no business preventing them from doing so, correct?

[Balloon guy 158]

Maybe I haven't explained it well enough. First, I never said 100% open borders. I said create a reasonable means to live and work here, and a reasonable path to citizenship. Fix that, and nobody sneaks across except people who could not get here honestly.

So you want to increase the number of allowed immigrants each year?So let's say we increase it to 100,000 a year, what do we do when number 100,001 sneaks in? We have to increase the number by your logic. Or do we begin enforcing border regulation as soon as 100,000 people are let in? You are doing the exact same thing then that we are doing now....enforcing border laws.

Second, it's not just the problems with the means of enforcement, it's the harm caused when behavior that could easily be controlled through honest transactions get handled on a black market. It ALWAYS creates more harm than the original problem. Look at prohibition in the 20s. It ALWAYS works like that. We gave up on that experiment for a reason.

We were not trying to experiment with prohibition. We were trying to stop a knowingly harmful drink from becoming rampant across the country. It failed more because it used to be legal and then we took it away, that was problematic. So now we have alcohol sold legally, taxed and sold to everyone who we arbitrarily assume is mature enough to handle it.Of course the problems we have from drunk driving deaths to alcoholism is a small price to pay for freedom.The argument is coming from two extreme sides of the same issue.One side ( yours ) looks at Mr. Happy Dopehead, who smokes a joint at home while listening to Pink Floyd and talks about his fingernail having an entire universe in it.The other side ( mine ) looks at Mr Tweeker crackhead who has basically had to completely drop out of society because his addiction has consumed his life.While I am looking down the issue, with Mr Tweeker in my immediate line of sight, I think you are being a naive fool who is about to open the doors to hell on this country for some ridiculous pie in the sky ideal that doesn't exist in real life.You on the other hand are looking over Mr Happy Dopehead and thinking why do you people want to control everything these people do, when they are free citizens who are harming no one.So I will explain to you why Mr. Happy Dopehead should not be allowed access to legal pot, if you can explain to me why Mr Tweeker SHOULD be allowed access to legal meth/crack/ecstasy.

[Balloon guy 158]

I guess that's why a Hispanic US truck driver just got handcuffed for a half an hour despite having several valid forms of ID.But that won't happen, right?

When did this happen?Before or after this law takes effect?

[LongLiveYorke 38]

This is what H is going to say:

Would you also be logically consistent and have the FDA become just the FA, allowing pharmaceuticals to sell all drugs to anyone regardless of their side effects?

No, of course not. My problem isn't with regulation, my problem is with prohibition. In a world without drug prohibition, the role of the FDA would be to ensure that a drug does what it says it intends to do with minmal side effects, and that it is honest about those side effects. So, perscription pills will still be under the same scrutiny that they are today to act as they claim and to have tests backing up those claims. The same would be true, for example, if Pfizer were to make meth.

Can Pfizer make Meth? And package is so we can all enjoy the taxes this will generate?

"Meth" would be a drug whose purpose was a particular feeling of "high." It's side effects would include teeth falling out, extreme addiction, etc. It would be the FDA's job to ensure that this drug was properly packaged and well documented.But who would ever use "meth" when Pfizer also makes "Soma," a drug that gives an even better feeling of high, and with no addiction or physical side effects. Meth would quickly go out of business, just as a company which makes cell phones that explode readily would go out of business, where as the iphone thrives.

[dapokerbum 0]

WOW! I left this discussion for one day to play in a company golf tournament and BAM it explodes out.I honestly don't know what to say or where to start ... maybe I'll come back later and try to add something ... but maybe I'll just be a silent observer. Not sure the direction I want to take.

[strategy 4]

This is what H is going to say:No, of course not. My problem isn't with regulation, my problem is with prohibition. In a world without drug prohibition, the role of the FDA would be to ensure that a drug does what it says it intends to do with minmal side effects, and that it is honest about those side effects. So, perscription pills will still be under the same scrutiny that they are today to act as they claim and to have tests backing up those claims. The same would be true, for example, if Pfizer were to make meth."Meth" would be a drug whose purpose was a particular feeling of "high." It's side effects would include teeth falling out, extreme addiction, etc. It would be the FDA's job to ensure that this drug was properly packaged and well documented.But who would ever use "meth" when Pfizer also makes "Soma," a drug that gives an even better feeling of high, and with no addiction or physical side effects. Meth would quickly go out of business, just as a company which makes cell phones that explode readily would go out of business, where as the iphone thrives.

this was pretty nice.

[vbnautilus 48]

The only reason meth exists is because drugs are illegal.

Seriously, that's absurd. Meth exists because it is effective at manipulating the human brain's motivational system in order to make itself wanted.

Meth is not a safe drug, and no manufacturer that is subject to liability laws would produce it.

Then a manufacturer who is not subject to liability laws will produce it. I.e., it will still be made illegally. You're not dealing with a rational motivation here. We're talking about something that circumvents rationality to directly cause wanting. People will find a way to get it, and making it legal is not going to make it go away. I'm not saying it should remain illegal, just that you are not serving your cause with this particular argument.

[Balloon guy 158]

This is what H is going to say:No, of course not. My problem isn't with regulation, my problem is with prohibition. In a world without drug prohibition, the role of the FDA would be to ensure that a drug does what it says it intends to do with minmal side effects, and that it is honest about those side effects. So, perscription pills will still be under the same scrutiny that they are today to act as they claim and to have tests backing up those claims. The same would be true, for example, if Pfizer were to make meth."Meth" would be a drug whose purpose was a particular feeling of "high." It's side effects would include teeth falling out, extreme addiction, etc. It would be the FDA's job to ensure that this drug was properly packaged and well documented.But who would ever use "meth" when Pfizer also makes "Soma," a drug that gives an even better feeling of high, and with no addiction or physical side effects. Meth would quickly go out of business, just as a company which makes cell phones that explode readily would go out of business, where as the iphone thrives.

This is how I would respond to H.Because of what V said

[vbnautilus 48]

But who would ever use "meth" when Pfizer also makes "Soma," a drug that gives an even better feeling of high, and with no addiction or physical side effects.

People addicted to "meth"?I mean, who would ever smoke tobacco given that it causes addiction and death by cancer, costs a lot, and provides a very minimal high that goes away once you are addicted?H's point should not be that meth will go away if we make it legal. It should be that meth is a public health problem rather than a legal problem, and should be dealt with through education, psychological and medical care rather than prison and courts.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

H's point should not be that meth will go away if we make it legal. It should be that meth is a public health problem rather than a legal problem, and should be dealt with through education, psychological and medical care rather than prison and courts.

Not sure if that's what H would say, but it seems to be a better response than the one I wrote.

[Zealous Donkey 0]

Seriously, that's absurd. Meth exists because it is effective at manipulating the human brain's motivational system in order to make itself wanted.

Isn't that true of all things addictive? This is not a rhetorical question. I would like to know.

People addicted to "meth"?H's point should not be that meth will go away if we make it legal. It should be that meth is a public health problem rather than a legal problem, and should be dealt with through education, psychological and medical care rather than prison and courts.

Isn't that already what we're doing? That is more of a rhetorical question. Obviously, if education, psychogical, and medical care worked we wouldn' have to use the courts and prison as much as we do. The prisons need the space. And it isn't like these people aren't dangerous. Just this last week a childhood friend of mine was stabbed to death by a meth head.

[strategy 4]

Obviously, if education, psychogical, and medical care worked we wouldn' have to use the courts and prison as much as we do.

I'm uncomfortable with this reasoning.This thread is so far derailed.