Wednesday, June 16, 2010
A Modest Proposal To Deal With Our Drug Problem
I have heard countless times over the years that the violence in Mexico committed by drug gangs and the unceasing flow of drugs across the US/Mexico border is due entirely to the US's inability (Or is it unwillingness?. Ed) to control its domestic demand for illegal drugs such as cocaine in its various forms, heroin and of course, marijuana. Now I see a suggestion by Sen. Hatch (R-UT) that welfare recipients be subjected to drug tests as a condition for receiving benefits. That's not a bad idea, but I don't' think it'll work. I would propose something a bit more drastic, which would be costly in the short run but probably save lots of money in the long run.
First, decriminalize marijuana. It is so prevalent and so easy to grow domestically that I believe it's a fool's errand to try to eradicate its use. Maybe even legalize it, with heavy regulation requiring commercial growers to register with the government, imposing heavy penalties for delivering the weed to minors, and taxing the crap out of it, with equally heavy penalties for failure to register as a grower and for evading the tax.
As to harder drugs, anyone (any adult, that is) who tests positive for heroin, cocaine or any other illegal drug would be institutionalized at once, be given a clean and safe place to sleep, wholesome food in appropriate quantities, and as much of his/her drug of choice (except marijuana) as desired, but with no medical care provided unless, until and so long as the user is enrolled in and actively participating in a detox/rehab program. If the user OD's, well, too bad, but it would be his choice. It makes no sense to me to provide medical care to someone who is killing himself anyway, because it would be a waste of (increasingly) scarce resources, which would be better applied to saving people who are trying to achieve some level of success in bettering themselves and society in general. I figure what the heck, druggies are committing slow suicide anyway and at some point they either have to bring themselves back from the precipice or go over it. All this program would do is to make the choice more immediate and much starker.
The detox/rehab program (which I don't believe would be 100% effective) would be carefully designed using methods that have been empirically proven to give the best results. Upon completion of the rehab program the user would be free to go, but would be monitored periodically for some length of time to ensure against backsliding. Backsliders would go through the whole program again, until either they remained clean or died of an overdose. This whole process would be administered outside of the criminal justice system, and as such would presumably not carry the same stigma as a criminal conviction.
The idea, of course, is to provide the user the choice (rhetorically speaking) between heaven and hell, but it is entirely the user's choice which way to go. The drugs provided to the inmates would come from quantities confiscated by law enforcement and other agencies, and would be purified to ensure they contained no toxic substances other than the drug itself, and diluted to typical street concentration to prevent unintended OD.
I believe this plan would over time drastically reduce the demand for illegal drugs in the US, by either weaning users off their drugs or by letting them die off. Of course, current efforts to interdict drug importation would continue, as would prosecutions of dealers.
(0) comments
First, decriminalize marijuana. It is so prevalent and so easy to grow domestically that I believe it's a fool's errand to try to eradicate its use. Maybe even legalize it, with heavy regulation requiring commercial growers to register with the government, imposing heavy penalties for delivering the weed to minors, and taxing the crap out of it, with equally heavy penalties for failure to register as a grower and for evading the tax.
As to harder drugs, anyone (any adult, that is) who tests positive for heroin, cocaine or any other illegal drug would be institutionalized at once, be given a clean and safe place to sleep, wholesome food in appropriate quantities, and as much of his/her drug of choice (except marijuana) as desired, but with no medical care provided unless, until and so long as the user is enrolled in and actively participating in a detox/rehab program. If the user OD's, well, too bad, but it would be his choice. It makes no sense to me to provide medical care to someone who is killing himself anyway, because it would be a waste of (increasingly) scarce resources, which would be better applied to saving people who are trying to achieve some level of success in bettering themselves and society in general. I figure what the heck, druggies are committing slow suicide anyway and at some point they either have to bring themselves back from the precipice or go over it. All this program would do is to make the choice more immediate and much starker.
The detox/rehab program (which I don't believe would be 100% effective) would be carefully designed using methods that have been empirically proven to give the best results. Upon completion of the rehab program the user would be free to go, but would be monitored periodically for some length of time to ensure against backsliding. Backsliders would go through the whole program again, until either they remained clean or died of an overdose. This whole process would be administered outside of the criminal justice system, and as such would presumably not carry the same stigma as a criminal conviction.
The idea, of course, is to provide the user the choice (rhetorically speaking) between heaven and hell, but it is entirely the user's choice which way to go. The drugs provided to the inmates would come from quantities confiscated by law enforcement and other agencies, and would be purified to ensure they contained no toxic substances other than the drug itself, and diluted to typical street concentration to prevent unintended OD.
I believe this plan would over time drastically reduce the demand for illegal drugs in the US, by either weaning users off their drugs or by letting them die off. Of course, current efforts to interdict drug importation would continue, as would prosecutions of dealers.
Labels: Drug Problem, Health Care, Mexico, violence
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Scorned In Our Own House
That's the headline/photo caption on the homepage of Fox News Online as I write this. The story is about Mexico's President Felipe Calderon's address to a joint session of Congress in which he scolded the United States and Arizona in particular about the need to pass "comprehensive immigration reform."
I guess that kind of arrogant (and rather ungrateful) behavior is what happens when the President of the United States and his minions go out of their way to apologize for the country's sins, real or imagined, to any and every government on the planet, bowing and scraping as they do so.
I can't find it in my heart to blame Calderon too much, since he's on the brink of losing his country to narcoterrorists and the Mexican economy isn't much better than that of Greece (due in large part, by the way, to stifling economic policies and corruption going back at least a century). He knows that people of Mexican heritage in the US, whether here legally or illegally, send about a billion dollars a year to their relatives in Mexico, and if that cash spigot were to dry up Mexico would be in dire straits, indeed.
The irony is that the bracero program that was in effect from the middle of WWII until the Johnson administration worked pretty well for both countries. It was canceled in 1964, largely due to the efforts of US labor unions, who saw the program as a threat to their efforts to organize domestic agricultural workers. Of course, back then we didn't have the drug problem we have now.
I am among the many who are all in favor of immigration so long as it is done in compliance with the law. I have no sympathy, however, for those who are in the country illegally. I think our immigration laws ought to be revised to let more people in from all countries, and to allow guest workers from Mexico and elsewhere, providing they fulfill several requirements that are part of the Mexican immigration law, in particular the following:
I also think the clause in the Fourteenth Amendment that provides that "All persons born ... in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States ...." should be amended to further provide that the mother must be a lawful resident of the United States at the time of such birth, i.e., no "citizenship tourism" allowed and no green card for Mom means no automatic citizenship for Baby. This would solve the "anchor baby" problem. At the time the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted the United States had no immigration laws to speak of. We wanted pretty much everyone we could get, in order to settle and develop our vast West. Times have changed.
I realize that many will find these measures harsh, but I firmly believe that a nation that cannot or will not defend its borders will not long remain a nation. Our political leaders of both parties have been "ostriching" on this issue for at least two decades, and we absolutely must get a handle on this problem for both economic and national defense reasons.
(0) comments
I guess that kind of arrogant (and rather ungrateful) behavior is what happens when the President of the United States and his minions go out of their way to apologize for the country's sins, real or imagined, to any and every government on the planet, bowing and scraping as they do so.
I can't find it in my heart to blame Calderon too much, since he's on the brink of losing his country to narcoterrorists and the Mexican economy isn't much better than that of Greece (due in large part, by the way, to stifling economic policies and corruption going back at least a century). He knows that people of Mexican heritage in the US, whether here legally or illegally, send about a billion dollars a year to their relatives in Mexico, and if that cash spigot were to dry up Mexico would be in dire straits, indeed.
The irony is that the bracero program that was in effect from the middle of WWII until the Johnson administration worked pretty well for both countries. It was canceled in 1964, largely due to the efforts of US labor unions, who saw the program as a threat to their efforts to organize domestic agricultural workers. Of course, back then we didn't have the drug problem we have now.
I am among the many who are all in favor of immigration so long as it is done in compliance with the law. I have no sympathy, however, for those who are in the country illegally. I think our immigration laws ought to be revised to let more people in from all countries, and to allow guest workers from Mexico and elsewhere, providing they fulfill several requirements that are part of the Mexican immigration law, in particular the following:
- Foreigners (including lawful resident aliens whether or not pursuing citizenship) will not be a burden to the taxpayers. No welfare, no food stamps, no government health care, no public education or other government assistance programs. Any foreigners who are or become an economic burden on the United States or any State will be deported.
- Foreigners may have no protests; no demonstrations, no waving of a foreign flag, no political organizing, no bad-mouthing our president or his policies. These will lead to deportation.
- Anyone who enters the United States illegally will be actively hunted and, when caught, sent to jail until your deportation can be arranged.
- Entering the United States illegally after being deported is a felony, requiring imprisonment for not less than two years (no plea bargains).
I also think the clause in the Fourteenth Amendment that provides that "All persons born ... in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States ...." should be amended to further provide that the mother must be a lawful resident of the United States at the time of such birth, i.e., no "citizenship tourism" allowed and no green card for Mom means no automatic citizenship for Baby. This would solve the "anchor baby" problem. At the time the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted the United States had no immigration laws to speak of. We wanted pretty much everyone we could get, in order to settle and develop our vast West. Times have changed.
I realize that many will find these measures harsh, but I firmly believe that a nation that cannot or will not defend its borders will not long remain a nation. Our political leaders of both parties have been "ostriching" on this issue for at least two decades, and we absolutely must get a handle on this problem for both economic and national defense reasons.
Labels: Arizona, Border Enforcement, Constitution, Illegal Aliens, Immigration, Mexico
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Question About Arizona's New Illegal Alien Law
Amidst all the brouhaha and accusations, I've seen nobody addressing the following question:
I will not buy any answer that's based on ICE being federal and the Arizona cops being state. It's pretty clear on the face of it that the federal government has defaulted on its Constitutional obligation* to defend the borders, so it would seem that Arizona has the right to defend itself against invasion by foreign nationals. (Thank you, Professor Reynolds.)
People have objected to the professor's theory on the grounds that the definition of "invasion" has been settled by Congress and the courts, and it doesn't include gradual and long-term illegal entry by foreigners. However, as a practical matter when citizens are being murdered and other felonies are being committed by drug gang members and just general lowlifes who are in the United States illegally, is the state of Arizona required to sit on its hands and wait for the feds to take action that might never happen?
What about the clause after the invasion clause. Suppose the Arizona Legislature "applied" to the federal government to come in and protect the state of Arizona against domestic violence being perpetrated by the illegals? Back in law school I was taught that the word "shall" connotes a mandatory action. Would the feds do nothing and thus twice violate the same Constitutional section?
Would the intentional failure by a President to defend the border constitute a "high crime or misdemeanor" that would be grounds for impeachment? (Ans.: Not against Obama with the present Congress. - Ed.)
If nothing is done by government the people will take matters into their own hands, and vigilantism would probably be a lot worse for Hispanics, whether here legally or illegally, than anything the Arizona cops (many of whom are Hispanic themselves) would do.
* Art. IV, Section 4 reads in its entirety:
(0) comments
How, exactly, will the procedures and tactics used by Arizona law enforcement officers under the new law to identify and arrest illegal aliens differ from those already used by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers?Seems to me the answer to that question is important. If the Arizona cops don't do anything differently in identifying and arresting illegal aliens, why is it OK for the ICE officers but not for the Arizona police officers?
I will not buy any answer that's based on ICE being federal and the Arizona cops being state. It's pretty clear on the face of it that the federal government has defaulted on its Constitutional obligation* to defend the borders, so it would seem that Arizona has the right to defend itself against invasion by foreign nationals. (Thank you, Professor Reynolds.)
People have objected to the professor's theory on the grounds that the definition of "invasion" has been settled by Congress and the courts, and it doesn't include gradual and long-term illegal entry by foreigners. However, as a practical matter when citizens are being murdered and other felonies are being committed by drug gang members and just general lowlifes who are in the United States illegally, is the state of Arizona required to sit on its hands and wait for the feds to take action that might never happen?
What about the clause after the invasion clause. Suppose the Arizona Legislature "applied" to the federal government to come in and protect the state of Arizona against domestic violence being perpetrated by the illegals? Back in law school I was taught that the word "shall" connotes a mandatory action. Would the feds do nothing and thus twice violate the same Constitutional section?
Would the intentional failure by a President to defend the border constitute a "high crime or misdemeanor" that would be grounds for impeachment? (Ans.: Not against Obama with the present Congress. - Ed.)
If nothing is done by government the people will take matters into their own hands, and vigilantism would probably be a lot worse for Hispanics, whether here legally or illegally, than anything the Arizona cops (many of whom are Hispanic themselves) would do.
* Art. IV, Section 4 reads in its entirety:
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence. (Emphasis added.)
Labels: Arizona, Constitution, defense, Illegal Aliens, Mexico
Saturday, January 03, 2009
California Will Be Bankrupt Before General Motors
The following was posted as a comment to Ronnie Schreiber's piece at Pajamas Media.
I like Fighterdoc's analysis. As one who lives in California but who has old onnections with, if not roots in Michigan, I agree that both states (to follow Fighterdoc's analogy) should be in the ICU, but Michigan just might follow doctor's orders, while California is still in denial.
There are actually a lot of similarities between the two states, chiefly the dichotomy of the urban industrial and the rural agricultural, with the latter actually producing more value. I have long said that Los Angeles is Detroit with palm trees, and I believe that California is headed for a "payless payday" as happened in Michigan in 1959, and which led directly to the revised state Constitution in 1963 that Ronnie refers to.
The real problem in California is due to gerrymandered safe seats in the legislature, which has allowed the development of a political class that is anything but answerable to the voters, and instead is beholden to special interests such as the teachers' union and the prison guards' union. California has been an eager participant in the Nation's credit binge which led to the economic collapse of last fall, but unlike most of us, the state of California continues to live beyond its means. Even now, with the fiscal crisis in the state coming rapidly to a head, the legislature will not consider reducing spending or laying off a single state employee. Term limits didn't help, because each legislator leaving office due to term limits is replaced by a clone who is owned by the same special interests and holds the same political philosophy.
I believe that raising taxes in an already high-tax state is not the answer, because in response companies and people will relocate to more economically friendly states like next-door Nevada and Arizona, and even Texas and Idaho. Cutting spending and removing restrictions on how existing funds are spent is the only answer, and the people of California will have to get by with fewer State services. Unfortunately, the politicians' mindset is to extort higher taxes from the populace by first cutting things like police and fire protection rather than paring back unnecessary pet projects and easing stifling regulation.
Just watch folks -- in a couple years California will no longer be known as the Golden State, but rather as the New Jersey of the West. Or maybe the Mexico of the North. (Cross posted to my blog.)
(0) comments
I like Fighterdoc's analysis. As one who lives in California but who has old onnections with, if not roots in Michigan, I agree that both states (to follow Fighterdoc's analogy) should be in the ICU, but Michigan just might follow doctor's orders, while California is still in denial.
There are actually a lot of similarities between the two states, chiefly the dichotomy of the urban industrial and the rural agricultural, with the latter actually producing more value. I have long said that Los Angeles is Detroit with palm trees, and I believe that California is headed for a "payless payday" as happened in Michigan in 1959, and which led directly to the revised state Constitution in 1963 that Ronnie refers to.
The real problem in California is due to gerrymandered safe seats in the legislature, which has allowed the development of a political class that is anything but answerable to the voters, and instead is beholden to special interests such as the teachers' union and the prison guards' union. California has been an eager participant in the Nation's credit binge which led to the economic collapse of last fall, but unlike most of us, the state of California continues to live beyond its means. Even now, with the fiscal crisis in the state coming rapidly to a head, the legislature will not consider reducing spending or laying off a single state employee. Term limits didn't help, because each legislator leaving office due to term limits is replaced by a clone who is owned by the same special interests and holds the same political philosophy.
I believe that raising taxes in an already high-tax state is not the answer, because in response companies and people will relocate to more economically friendly states like next-door Nevada and Arizona, and even Texas and Idaho. Cutting spending and removing restrictions on how existing funds are spent is the only answer, and the people of California will have to get by with fewer State services. Unfortunately, the politicians' mindset is to extort higher taxes from the populace by first cutting things like police and fire protection rather than paring back unnecessary pet projects and easing stifling regulation.
Just watch folks -- in a couple years California will no longer be known as the Golden State, but rather as the New Jersey of the West. Or maybe the Mexico of the North. (Cross posted to my blog.)
Labels: California, California legislature, Economy, government, Mexico, Michigan, Regulation, Tax policy
Monday, December 29, 2008
Iraq and Mexico
Interesting juxtaposition here. This article at the BBC news site says (depending on who you want do believe) civilian deaths due to terrorist attacks in Iraq in 2008 were 5,714 (official Iraqi government figure) or somewhere between 8,315 and 9,328 (Iraq Body Count, an NGO). The official figure is a rate of 20.25 per 100,000, and the higher IBC rate is 33.05 per 100,000, based on the most recent population estimate for Iraq from the CIA World Factbook.
This morning I was listening to KOGO radio in San Diego, and I believe I heard one of the commentators say that as many as 5,000 homicides had occurred in Tijuana alone during 2008. Now, I researched that because it seemed awfully high, and the most recent number I came up with is 740 murders in TJ as of early December (official number), That works out to a rate of 49.8 homicides per 100,000.
So, there you have it. You're more likely to die of homicide in Tijuana than you are in Iraq.
(0) comments
This morning I was listening to KOGO radio in San Diego, and I believe I heard one of the commentators say that as many as 5,000 homicides had occurred in Tijuana alone during 2008. Now, I researched that because it seemed awfully high, and the most recent number I came up with is 740 murders in TJ as of early December (official number), That works out to a rate of 49.8 homicides per 100,000.
So, there you have it. You're more likely to die of homicide in Tijuana than you are in Iraq.
Labels: Iraq, Mexico, murder rate, violence
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Trouble in Mexico
I saw this story in the dead tree edition of the San Diego Union-Tribune. Two people tossed grenades into a crowd of people celebrating Mexico's Independence Day (no, it's not Cinco de Mayo, which celebrates a military victory), killing seven and injuring more than 100.
It is troubling that our next-door neighbor is experiencing this kind of violence, particularly so because our southern border is so porous. I fear it's only a matter of time before some major tourist destination is subjected to attack, and Americans killed en masse.
If I recall correctly, Glenn Reynolds noted some time ago that Mexico is getting to look more and more like Iraq. He was right, and it's getting worse. (Unfortunately, I couldn't find a link, but that's probably due to my poor search skills.)
(0) comments
It is troubling that our next-door neighbor is experiencing this kind of violence, particularly so because our southern border is so porous. I fear it's only a matter of time before some major tourist destination is subjected to attack, and Americans killed en masse.
If I recall correctly, Glenn Reynolds noted some time ago that Mexico is getting to look more and more like Iraq. He was right, and it's getting worse. (Unfortunately, I couldn't find a link, but that's probably due to my poor search skills.)
Labels: bombings, Mexico, violence
