Border agent hit, killed by suspect's car

[HAL 9000 96]

HINT:

Smuggling into a particular market strongly suggests enough of a demand for the smuggled product.

This you could take farther out than illegal drugs...

Cut the demand part, and you cut the smuggling part.

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

I think the subheading "another one killed in the line of duty" is what triggered the whole 'it's all the fault of brown people' blah blah blah.

Good point. People need to be careful about stringing different criminal acts together in such a way that suggest a common problem.

Without fanning the flames though, I'd like to know what Charles really thinks about why drug smuggling occurs, who is to blame and how he proposes we stop it?

crackheads need crack. what more do you need to know?

maybe we can trade a crackhead for a hard working illegal, how's that plan?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I think the subheading "another one killed in the line of duty" is what triggered the whole 'it's all the fault of brown people' blah blah blah.

Good point. People need to be careful about stringing different criminal acts together in such a way that suggest a common problem.

Without fanning the flames though, I'd like to know what Charles really thinks about why drug smuggling occurs, who is to blame and how he proposes we stop it?

crackheads need crack. what more do you need to know?

maybe we can trade a crackhead for a hard working illegal, how's that plan?

So what's your solution? Don't dodge the question.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

HINT:

Smuggling into a particular market strongly suggests enough of a demand for the smuggled product.

This you could take farther out than illegal drugs...

Cut the demand part, and you cut the smuggling part.

Totally different example - but I'm pretty sure that everytime a book or movie has been banned, that you invariably get a large amount of underground interest in it. In short, the prohibition has the opposite effect to what was intended.

Still... in context... if its constitutionally objectionable to ban firearms, knives and samurai swords, and also give people unlimited right to free speech, to allow them to consume alcohol and smoke without restriction, why can the same logic not be applied to this issue?

It seems remarkably inconsistent. Those "Dope Fiend" videos from the 50's have a lot to answer for IMO.

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

I think the subheading "another one killed in the line of duty" is what triggered the whole 'it's all the fault of brown people' blah blah blah.

Good point. People need to be careful about stringing different criminal acts together in such a way that suggest a common problem.

Without fanning the flames though, I'd like to know what Charles really thinks about why drug smuggling occurs, who is to blame and how he proposes we stop it?

crackheads need crack. what more do you need to know?

maybe we can trade a crackhead for a hard working illegal, how's that plan?

So what's your solution? Don't dodge the question.

who are you again to start demanding answers? you've provided zero input to this thread but you sure want answers.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I think the subheading "another one killed in the line of duty" is what triggered the whole 'it's all the fault of brown people' blah blah blah.

Good point. People need to be careful about stringing different criminal acts together in such a way that suggest a common problem.

Without fanning the flames though, I'd like to know what Charles really thinks about why drug smuggling occurs, who is to blame and how he proposes we stop it?

crackheads need crack. what more do you need to know?

maybe we can trade a crackhead for a hard working illegal, how's that plan?

So what's your solution? Don't dodge the question.

who are you again to start demanding answers? you've provided zero input to this thread but you sure want answers.

No need to be defensive, I'm simply asking you a legitimate question since you are the OP.

[HAL 9000 96]

Indeed, there's a need for a heckufalot of logic here...

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

I think the subheading "another one killed in the line of duty" is what triggered the whole 'it's all the fault of brown people' blah blah blah.

Good point. People need to be careful about stringing different criminal acts together in such a way that suggest a common problem.

Without fanning the flames though, I'd like to know what Charles really thinks about why drug smuggling occurs, who is to blame and how he proposes we stop it?

crackheads need crack. what more do you need to know?

maybe we can trade a crackhead for a hard working illegal, how's that plan?

So what's your solution? Don't dodge the question.

who are you again to start demanding answers? you've provided zero input to this thread but you sure want answers.

No need to be defensive, I'm simply asking you a legitimate question since you are the OP.

my opinion has zero to do with a border agent being run over by a drug smuggler. mkay?

[Peikko 1,575]

The % of addicts isn't going to change any time soon. We don't know why people get addicted to substances, although it is true that research is getting closer to understanding the mechanics of it. However, until we do know what causes some people to become addicted and others not to, we can't expect things to change miraculously and the behaviors that directly result from being under the influence of the drugs are not so simple to prevent.

However, as I have suggested, the majority of criminal behavior can to be directly related to the illegal trafficking and procuration of drugs. Legalising the whole process would eliminate a lot of crime in this area and yes, free up a lot of police resources to pursue other areas of crime. That some business should make a profit out of it? Well that's not for me to say. That government should tax it? Again, not for me to say. I would imagine though that it should be produced in the same way that other drugs are produced legally.

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

The % of addicts isn't going to change any time soon. We don't know why people get addicted to substances, although it is true that research is getting closer to understanding the mechanics of it. However, until we do know what causes some people to become addicted and others not to, we can't expect things to change miraculously and the behaviors that directly result from being under the influence of the drugs are not so simple to prevent.

However, as I have suggested, the majority of criminal behavior can to be directly related to the illegal trafficking and procuration of drugs. Legalising the whole process would eliminate a lot of crime in this area and yes, free up a lot of police resources to pursue other areas of crime. That some business should make a profit out of it? Well that's not for me to say. That government should tax it? Again, not for me to say. I would imagine though that it should be produced in the same way that other drugs are produced legally.

i'm having a difficult time buying that. just because it's legal that will not "eliminate a lot of crime in this area" nor "free up a lot of police resources to pursue other areas of crime." were that the case, people would not be robbing liquor stores for alcohol now would they?

a serious pipe dream on your part.

[HAL 9000 96]

Doesn't the government make a habit of taxing the majority of products geared for consumption in the USA?

Heyyyy!! This would mean more funds for educating people NOT to create a market for the drug in the first place. Seems logical to me. Plus with a decreased market you'd have a decrease in production of said substances.

Maybe with the decreased demand and increased surplus we can also create a training situation for those farmers that produce cash crops that feed the demand in our neck of the woods and stimulate the demand for better utilization of resources in their neck of the woods. Yet another short/long term possibility to reduce... illegals...

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The % of addicts isn't going to change any time soon. We don't know why people get addicted to substances, although it is true that research is getting closer to understanding the mechanics of it. However, until we do know what causes some people to become addicted and others not to, we can't expect things to change miraculously and the behaviors that directly result from being under the influence of the drugs are not so simple to prevent.

However, as I have suggested, the majority of criminal behavior can to be directly related to the illegal trafficking and procuration of drugs. Legalising the whole process would eliminate a lot of crime in this area and yes, free up a lot of police resources to pursue other areas of crime. That some business should make a profit out of it? Well that's not for me to say. That government should tax it? Again, not for me to say. I would imagine though that it should be produced in the same way that other drugs are produced legally.

Given the problem with gang crime in many cities, including here in NJ, I think it would be difficult to argue that the majority of their 'income' doesn't stem from the drug trade.

Edited January 22, 2008 by Number 6

[Nessa 23]

I think the subheading "another one killed in the line of duty" is what triggered the whole 'it's all the fault of brown people' blah blah blah.

Good point. People need to be careful about stringing different criminal acts together in such a way that suggest a common problem.

Without fanning the flames though, I'd like to know what Charles really thinks about why drug smuggling occurs, who is to blame and how he proposes we stop it?

crackheads need crack. what more do you need to know?

maybe we can trade a crackhead for a hard working illegal, how's that plan?

they also need heads. otherwise they'll be only crack without the heads or crackbutts

[Peikko 1,575]

were that the case, people would not be robbing liquor stores for alcohol now would they?

The fact that some people do still rob liquor stores isn't because they want the liquor, they want the cash for...illegal drugs perhaps?

It is perfectly reasonable to make the case that legalisation would eliminate a majority of crimes related to the acquisition of drugs. Much of the reason for the crime is the profit margins that illegal substances can command. Legal drugs are really very cheap. Alcohol can be procured legally by even the poorest in society.

[HAL 9000 96]

The % of addicts isn't going to change any time soon. We don't know why people get addicted to substances, although it is true that research is getting closer to understanding the mechanics of it. However, until we do know what causes some people to become addicted and others not to, we can't expect things to change miraculously and the behaviors that directly result from being under the influence of the drugs are not so simple to prevent.

However, as I have suggested, the majority of criminal behavior can to be directly related to the illegal trafficking and procuration of drugs. Legalising the whole process would eliminate a lot of crime in this area and yes, free up a lot of police resources to pursue other areas of crime. That some business should make a profit out of it? Well that's not for me to say. That government should tax it? Again, not for me to say. I would imagine though that it should be produced in the same way that other drugs are produced legally.

i'm having a difficult time buying that. just because it's legal that will not "eliminate a lot of crime in this area" nor "free up a lot of police resources to pursue other areas of crime." were that the case, people would not be robbing liquor stores for alcohol now would they?

a serious pipe dream on your part.

Criminal behavior as a result of drug use, yes, is able to be responded by law enforcement just the same as alcohol-induced criminal behavior.

By freeing up one part of the enforcement strategy, you create more man hours for enforcement of other sectors... like... criminal behavior of any sort.

What you do to one side of the equation, by definition, tends to affect the other side.