• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

[W:315]Trump threatens to shut border 'entirely' unless Democrats fund wall

Re: Trump threatens to shut border 'entirely' unless Democrats fund wall

Alcohol is a good example of a recreational drug that was once outlawed. The prohibition spawned underground markets and violent gangs, just as outlawing pot is doing now.

But, when we talk of addictive drugs, ones whose users develop a chemical dependency, that addiction is a medical problem and a pretty serious one. The addict needs to be able to get his chemicals through legitimate channels until and unless he can be helped to kick the addiction. Making the addict into a criminal simply drives him underground and makes it more difficult to seek treatment.

What do you think would happen if nicotine were to be outlawed? That's beyond a doubt a highly addictive drug.

Folks would get it from unregulated, untaxed criminal "entrepreneurs" but would likely not commit other crimes in order to feed their addiction (habit?). Most such "contraband" is available even inside of jails/prisons showing that substance bans, even in allegedly tightly controlled environments, are not apt to work as designed.

Many (if not most) "hard drug" addicts would self destruct (ingest a toxic overdose) if given unlimited access to their drug of choice long before they elected to seek treatment even if both options were "free". The best drug education is simply knowing a drug addict and watching their progression (degeneration?) towards total self destruction. I've personally witnessed several take that path and they all assured me that they were not out of control - they were just 'binge users' on occasion. Only one of them (that is not now in jail/prison) is still alive today.
 
Re: Trump threatens to shut border 'entirely' unless Democrats fund wall

1 Folks would get it from unregulated, untaxed criminal "entrepreneurs" but would likely not commit other crimes in order to feed their addiction (habit?). Most such "contraband" is available even inside of jails/prisons showing that substance bans, even in allegedly tightly controlled environments, are not apt to work as designed.

2 Many (if not most) "hard drug" addicts would self destruct (ingest a toxic overdose) if given unlimited access to their drug of choice long before they elected to seek treatment even if both options were "free". The best drug education is simply knowing a drug addict and watching their progression (degeneration?) towards total self destruction. I've personally witnessed several take that path and they all assured me that they were not out of control - they were just 'binge users' on occasion. Only one of them (that is not now in jail/prison) is still alive today.

1. As long as they could get their drug of choice at a low enough cost, they wouldn't have to resort to criminal activities to feed their habit. Once the cost grows to more than they can afford, they will resort to theft, to dealing, to whatever it takes to get their fix, just like coke addicts do now.

2. Some drugs would have to be dispensed under medical supervision. Give a crack addict unlimited access, and he's likely to OD and die.

On the other hand, the crack addict, the meth addict, the opioid addict is pretty likely to OD anyway, especially when there's no control over the dosage they're getting and what other substances might me mixed in with the drug. If they could get their drugs from a legitimate source and at a known dosage, they'd be less likely to die of their addiction.

As for shutting the border down to control the flow of drugs, that isn't likely to work. Even if the flow of drugs from south of the border were to be shut down, there are plenty of home grown illicit drugs right here in the USA.
 
Last edited:
Re: Trump threatens to shut border 'entirely' unless Democrats fund wall

1. As long as they could get their drug of choice at a low enough cost, they wouldn't have to resort to criminal activities to feed their habit. Once the cost grows to more than they can afford, they will resort to theft, to dealing, to whatever it takes to get their fix, just like coke addicts do now.

2. Some drugs would have to be dispensed under medical supervision. Give a crack addict unlimited access, and he's likely to OD and die.

On the other hand, the crack addict, the meth addict, the opioid addict is pretty likely to OD anyway, especially when there's no control over the dosage they're getting and what other substances might me mixed in with the drug. If they could get their drugs from a legitimate source and at a known dosage, they'd be less likely to die of their addiction.

That plan has some huge holes in it. Nobody is going to prescribe those drugs for recreational use. If anyone can get what they request (up to some per day/week/month allotment) from the drug store/bar then an addict need only enlist the help of another friend (or two) to get all they wanted (and more).
 
Re: Trump threatens to shut border 'entirely' unless Democrats fund wall

That plan has some huge holes in it. Nobody is going to prescribe those drugs for recreational use. If anyone can get what they request (up to some per day/week/month allotment) from the drug store/bar then an addict need only enlist the help of another friend (or two) to get all they wanted (and more).

Those drugs are not for recreational use. Addicts need the chemicals on which they've become dependent. It's not recreation, it's a compulsion.
 
Re: Trump threatens to shut border 'entirely' unless Democrats fund wall

Toronto is one of Canada's unifying forces. EVERYONE hates Toronto (except the people who live there [well some of them, at any rate]).

I currently live about 30 minutes drive outside of Vancouver.

I've been told it's clean and beautiful with a great quality of life type environment. What do you think? I wouldn't mind relocating there if it is as described.
 
Re: Trump threatens to shut border 'entirely' unless Democrats fund wall

I've been told it's clean and beautiful with a great quality of life type environment. What do you think? I wouldn't mind relocating there if it is as described.

It is to me. Other people might have different opinions.
 
Re: Trump threatens to shut border 'entirely' unless Democrats fund wall

Folks would get it from unregulated, untaxed criminal "entrepreneurs" but would likely not commit other crimes in order to feed their addiction (habit?). Most such "contraband" is available even inside of jails/prisons showing that substance bans, even in allegedly tightly controlled environments, are not apt to work as designed.

Many (if not most) "hard drug" addicts would self destruct (ingest a toxic overdose) if given unlimited access to their drug of choice long before they elected to seek treatment even if both options were "free". The best drug education is simply knowing a drug addict and watching their progression (degeneration?) towards total self destruction. I've personally witnessed several take that path and they all assured me that they were not out of control - they were just 'binge users' on occasion. Only one of them (that is not now in jail/prison) is still alive today.
My bolding

Not the experience in Portugal where "hard drugs" were legalised in 2001
Ten Years After Decriminalization, Drug Abuse Down by Half in Portugal

Drug warriors often contend that drug use would skyrocket if we were to legalize or decriminalize drugs in the United States. Fortunately, we have a real-world example of the actual effects of ending the violent, expensive War on Drugs and replacing it with a system of treatment for problem users and addicts.

Ten years ago, Portugal decriminalized all drugs. One decade after this unprecedented experiment, drug abuse is down by half

Portugal’s radical drugs policy is working. Why hasn’t the world copied it?

In 2001, (. . ., Portugal became the first country to decriminalise the possession and consumption of all illicit substances. Rather than being arrested, those caught with a personal supply might be given a warning, a small fine, or told to appear before a local commission – a doctor, a lawyer and a social worker – about treatment, harm reduction, and the support services that were available to them.

The opioid crisis soon stabilised, and the ensuing years saw dramatic drops in problematic drug use, HIV and hepatitis infection rates, overdose deaths, drug-related crime and incarceration rates. HIV infection plummeted from an all-time high in 2000 of 104.2 new cases per million to 4.2 cases per million in 2015. The data behind these changes has been studied and cited as evidence by harm-reduction movements around the globe. It’s misleading, however, to credit these positive results entirely to a change in law.

Portugal’s remarkable recovery, and the fact that it has held steady through several changes in government – including conservative leaders who would have preferred to return to the US-style war on drugs – could not have happened without an enormous cultural shift, and a change in how the country viewed drugs, addiction – and itself. In many ways, the law was merely a reflection of transformations that were already happening in clinics, in pharmacies and around kitchen tables across the country. The official policy of decriminalisation made it far easier for a broad range of services (health, psychiatry, employment, housing etc) that had been struggling to pool their resources and expertise, to work together more effectively to serve their communities.
 
Re: Trump threatens to shut border 'entirely' unless Democrats fund wall

My bolding

Not the experience in Portugal where "hard drugs" were legalised in 2001

You might also want to note that the lethal factor in most "drug overdoses" involving "illegal drugs" is NOT the specific drug itself but rather the crap that the drug dealers adulterate their "merchandise" with.

"Heroin" per se is not the type of drug that will cause death in the way that the lurid photos show, however, additives like Quinine (the original 'booster' used [it was also used to help stop the deaths from the Yellow Fever that was being spread amongst addicts because of 'shared needle use' {much as AIDS was decades later}]) or Fentanyl (the current favourite 'booster') are.
 
Re: Trump threatens to shut border 'entirely' unless Democrats fund wall

It is to me. Other people might have different opinions.

I looked at it on the net and it does look beautiful. It would be a definite upgrade from this god forsaken city. I'm fed up with it. Thanks for your opinion. I appreciate it.
 
Re: Trump threatens to shut border 'entirely' unless Democrats fund wall

My bolding

Not the experience in Portugal where "hard drugs" were legalised in 2001

But law enforcement and drug dealers alike are making money from the war on drugs. Not only that, but politicians can be "tough on crime" by supporting harsher drug laws. Follow the money, and it will lead to the truth every time.
 
Re: Trump threatens to shut border 'entirely' unless Democrats fund wall

I looked at it on the net and it does look beautiful. It would be a definite upgrade from this god forsaken city. I'm fed up with it. Thanks for your opinion. I appreciate it.

What you have to remember is that the murder rate for Metro Vancouver is around 2.11/100,000. (Probably around 0.7/100,000 if you eliminate all of the "internal commercial dispute resolutions" with respect to the illegal drug trade.)
 
Re: Trump threatens to shut border 'entirely' unless Democrats fund wall

But law enforcement and drug dealers alike are making money from the war on drugs. Not only that, but politicians can be "tough on crime" by supporting harsher drug laws. Follow the money, and it will lead to the truth every time.

I agree with your first sentence. Your third sentence is not always true - money can be used to mislead those who seek the truth.
 
Re: Trump threatens to shut border 'entirely' unless Democrats fund wall

I agree with your first sentence. Your third sentence is not always true - money can be used to mislead those who seek the truth.

Money can be used to buy propaganda and air time, that's true. It would be more accurate to say, follow who is getting the money and where it's coming from, and that will lead to the truth.
 
Re: Trump threatens to shut border 'entirely' unless Democrats fund wall

What you have to remember is that the murder rate for Metro Vancouver is around 2.11/100,000. (Probably around 0.7/100,000 if you eliminate all of the "internal commercial dispute resolutions" with respect to the illegal drug trade.)

Dang, that's awesome. Ours was 56/100,000. It's a war zone here, as in quite a few American cities.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...i-statistics-death-crime-killings/1426739002/
Among major U.S. cities, Baltimore was followed in the FBI’s annual tally by Detroit, which last year recorded a homicide rate of 40 per 100,000 people; Memphis, Tennessee, with a rate of 28 per 100,000; and Chicago, with a rate of 24 per 100,000. But some smaller cities reported a higher homicide rate than Baltimore’s. St. Louis, with a population slightly over 300,000, had a rate of 66 murders per 100,000 people. SMH :shock:
 
Re: Trump threatens to shut border 'entirely' unless Democrats fund wall

Dang, that's awesome. Ours was 56/100,000. It's a war zone here, as in quite a few American cities.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...i-statistics-death-crime-killings/1426739002/
Among major U.S. cities, Baltimore was followed in the FBI’s annual tally by Detroit, which last year recorded a homicide rate of 40 per 100,000 people; Memphis, Tennessee, with a rate of 28 per 100,000; and Chicago, with a rate of 24 per 100,000. But some smaller cities reported a higher homicide rate than Baltimore’s. St. Louis, with a population slightly over 300,000, had a rate of 66 murders per 100,000 people. SMH :shock:

Different societies, different attitudes towards the use of violence to "resolve" trivial matters, different outcomes.

I seriously doubt that the modal American differs all that much from the modal Canadian, but the range in the US does appear to be somewhat wider, and, since we would be looking at a "one tail test" the mean would likely be pushed further away from a murder rate of 0.0/100,000 in the US than it is in Canada.

"Guns don't kill people, people kill people" is correct as far as it goes, but it's closer to reality to say "Guns don't kill people, people willing to kill people kill people." and the US appears to have a higher percentage of "people willing to kill people" than Canada does. That is something that is NOT "genetic" but rather it is something that is "socialized in".

My opinion is that the US won't be very successful in dealing with its "murder rate problem" until it is successful in reducing the number of people who feel that shooting someone because they were too slow to pull away from a stop sign (or other similar trivial reasons). In fact, if the US were ever to change into a society were no one even thought that killing another person was a "good thing to do" then it wouldn't matter how many guns there were or who had them - would it?

PS - Yes, I know neither the US nor any other country is likely to reach that stage.
 
Re: Trump threatens to shut border 'entirely' unless Democrats fund wall

Different societies, different attitudes towards the use of violence to "resolve" trivial matters, different outcomes.

I seriously doubt that the modal American differs all that much from the modal Canadian, but the range in the US does appear to be somewhat wider, and, since we would be looking at a "one tail test" the mean would likely be pushed further away from a murder rate of 0.0/100,000 in the US than it is in Canada.

"Guns don't kill people, people kill people" is correct as far as it goes, but it's closer to reality to say "Guns don't kill people, people willing to kill people kill people." and the US appears to have a higher percentage of "people willing to kill people" than Canada does. That is something that is NOT "genetic" but rather it is something that is "socialized in".

My opinion is that the US won't be very successful in dealing with its "murder rate problem" until it is successful in reducing the number of people who feel that shooting someone because they were too slow to pull away from a stop sign (or other similar trivial reasons). In fact, if the US were ever to change into a society were no one even thought that killing another person was a "good thing to do" then it wouldn't matter how many guns there were or who had them - would it?

PS - Yes, I know neither the US nor any other country is likely to reach that stage.

I hold the same perspective concerning the causes of violent behavior. In Vermont, there are practically no gun laws. If you are a Vermont resident, you can carry a concealed firearm. No permit, gun safety course or waiting period. They have a computer universal background check at gun stores. You can walk in, by a handgun, and walk out with it tucked in your waist band the same day. And guess what state is the safest of all 50? Yup, Vermont. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...2I_ipxopGwDd8puY3IGgCE&cshid=1547405679145001

While states with the toughest gun laws, are the most dangerous, with my hometown of Baltimore leading the parade of violent cities. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...erous-cities&usg=AOvVaw3BJ--dp9RSgm2ZkTbNYUHY

One thing that's consistent, of all the sates with high murder rates, the urban centers seem to be the common denominator. In Maryland, there were 579 murders last year. 343 of them were in Baltimore. There are 6,042,718 citizens living in Maryland. So if you subtract Baltimores murders from Marylands total, it leaves 236. So, outside of Baltimore, there were 236 murders in a population of over 5 million people. In Baltimore, of course there were 343 muders out of slightly more than a half million (611,648) people. In my humble opinion, I believe the loss of 2 parent families, Judeo-Christian values and the emergence of moral relativism has created a cultural environment that accepts violence as a way to solve conflict. Again, JMHO
 
Re: Trump threatens to shut border 'entirely' unless Democrats fund wall

I hold the same perspective concerning the causes of violent behavior. In Vermont, there are practically no gun laws. If you are a Vermont resident, you can carry a concealed firearm. No permit, gun safety course or waiting period. They have a computer universal background check at gun stores. You can walk in, by a handgun, and walk out with it tucked in your waist band the same day. And guess what state is the safest of all 50? Yup, Vermont. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...2I_ipxopGwDd8puY3IGgCE&cshid=1547405679145001

While states with the toughest gun laws, are the most dangerous, with my hometown of Baltimore leading the parade of violent cities. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...erous-cities&usg=AOvVaw3BJ--dp9RSgm2ZkTbNYUHY

One thing that's consistent, of all the sates with high murder rates, the urban centers seem to be the common denominator. In Maryland, there were 579 murders last year. 343 of them were in Baltimore. There are 6,042,718 citizens living in Maryland. So if you subtract Baltimores murders from Marylands total, it leaves 236. So, outside of Baltimore, there were 236 murders in a population of over 5 million people. In Baltimore, of course there were 343 muders out of slightly more than a half million (611,648) people. In my humble opinion, I believe the loss of 2 parent families, Judeo-Christian values and the emergence of moral relativism has created a cultural environment that accepts violence as a way to solve conflict. Again, JMHO

Poverty and discrimination have nothing to do with the problems in Baltimore? More people in church at least twice a week will solve the problems? "moral relativism" is that stuff like allowing gays to marry, women being free to choose to have an abortion or not, keeping bible studies out of public schools, stopping businesses from firing employees for not practicing as the boss's religion demands? Is that what you mean when you write - "moral relativism" ?
 
Re: Trump threatens to shut border 'entirely' unless Democrats fund wall

In my humble opinion, I believe the loss of 2 parent families, Judeo-Christian values and the emergence of moral relativism has created a cultural environment that accepts violence as a way to solve conflict. Again, JMHO

One parent families have been with us ever since the first married person with young children died.

"Judeo-Chrisitian" values are actually almost identical with the underlying values of every religion (which I differentiate from "church").

"Moral relativism" is one of those terms that can translate into "acceptance of different values and modes of conduct as long as those differences don't involve the forcing of behaviours on the unwilling".

While I don't disagree with your conclusion, I think that your postulates (all of which may contribute to the cause) as to the cause are too narrow.

In short, let's take a REAL look at the "acceptance of violence as a way to resolve conflict" and see what ALL the actual causes are.
 
Re: Trump threatens to shut border 'entirely' unless Democrats fund wall

Poverty and discrimination have nothing to do with the problems in Baltimore? More people in church at least twice a week will solve the problems? "moral relativism" is that stuff like allowing gays to marry, women being free to choose to have an abortion or not, keeping bible studies out of public schools, stopping businesses from firing employees for not practicing as the boss's religion demands? Is that what you mean when you write - "moral relativism" ?

Poverty and discrimination have nothing to do with the problems in Baltimore? Baltimore city poverty rate is 24% There were 343 homicides in 2018. Baltimore County has a poverty rate of 9%. If poverty correlates with crimes like murder, Baltimore county should have had 247 murders . There were 35 murders in Baltimore county. So, the poverty excuse doesn't hold water.

More people in church at least twice a week will solve the problems? What are you talking about? Judeo-Christian VALUES, you know, like not having kids before marriage, do not steal, do not murder, do not lie etc.

moral relativism" is that stuff like allowing gays to marry, women being free to choose to have an abortion or not, keeping bible studies out of public schools, stopping businesses from firing employees for not practicing as the boss's religion demands? No, it's like not everything is good, because YOU believe it is good. Everything you stated are government protected. I'm a Christian. I am against abortion, but I believe government should but out. It should be up to the family. Of course, the law protect the woman in this choice, yet if the father wants the child to live and would take full responsibility, he has no say. But, if the woman wants to have the baby, she can force the father to support the child for 18 years. Suppose a community believes in human sacrifice, or, suppose a 30 year old man wants to marry a 13 year old girl? If she wants to, why not? Who are we to dictate how old one should be to marry, or have sex? How bout 12, or 11? Why not ? 11 is the age of consent in Nigeria. That's what I'm talking about when I say "moral relativism. If there are no standards, it's a slippery slope.


I noticed you didn't include the "JMHO" part of my post. Its just my opinion. You'd probably be surprised to know, that as a bible believeing Christian, that I'm fine with the way things are in the world. It continues on the path prophesied in the bible. If we all agreed with everything and peace and prosperity swept the world, it would contradict scriptures, especially "Revelation". Again, JMHO. No better or worse than yours and everybody elses here.
 
Re: Trump threatens to shut border 'entirely' unless Democrats fund wall

One parent families have been with us ever since the first married person with young children died.

"Judeo-Chrisitian" values are actually almost identical with the underlying values of every religion (which I differentiate from "church").

"Moral relativism" is one of those terms that can translate into "acceptance of different values and modes of conduct as long as those differences don't involve the forcing of behaviours on the unwilling".

While I don't disagree with your conclusion, I think that your postulates (all of which may contribute to the cause) as to the cause are too narrow.

In short, let's take a REAL look at the "acceptance of violence as a way to resolve conflict" and see what ALL the actual causes are.

I'm all ears. These were just my opinion, but if you can add to, or expand on it, let's hear it.

Moral relativism" is one of those terms that can translate into "acceptance of different values and modes of conduct as long as those differences don't involve the forcing of behaviors on the unwilling".
That's the problem with moral relativism. It's all "relative". To you, it means accepting values or conduct as long as it isn't forced on the unwilling. However, forcing it on others may be fine to some, like say, a cult that practice human sacrifice . There in lies the rub. However, we are inching toward it with each passing day.
 
Re: Trump threatens to shut border 'entirely' unless Democrats fund wall

I'm all ears. These were just my opinion, but if you can add to, or expand on it, let's hear it.

Moral relativism" is one of those terms that can translate into "acceptance of different values and modes of conduct as long as those differences don't involve the forcing of behaviors on the unwilling".

That's the problem with moral relativism. It's all "relative". To you, it means accepting values or conduct as long as it isn't forced on the unwilling. However, forcing it on others may be fine to some, like say, a cult that practice human sacrifice . There in lies the rub. However, we are inching toward it with each passing day.

I think that, if we refine the term a bit so that it reads "acceptable to the vast majority" then we can then agree that a belief by a small sub-set of society that it has the right to force its tenets on the majority would then fall outside of any RATIONAL definition of "acceptance of different values and modes of conduct as long as those differences don't involve the forcing of behaviours on the unwilling" in fact, as long as you include the term "don't involve the forcing of behaviours on the unwilling" then whatever the beliefs of the sub-set are, then the behaviours fall outside of the range of "acceptable".

"Unwilling" is hardly "subjective" since "No." means "No." in any language REGARDLESS of how "morally justified" someone feels in forcing behaviours upon someone who does not, or cannot, consent.

For example, I don't "carry" (I don't feel even the slightest sense of being in constant fear of deadly, or any, assault) but I have no issues with those who do. I do have a decided preference for having those people having to actually prove that they are capable (under almost all circumstances) of being in possession of firearms safely AND that they actually know how to use firearms effectively - but that's a different matter. IF I were to "carry" my preference would be for "open carry" because the proximate purpose of being armed is to DETER attempts to harm and, if the person with violent impulses realizes that they are likely to get shot if they mess with someone then they are less likely to mess with them.
 
Back
Top Bottom