BBO Discussion Forums: Swarm - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

  • 6 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Swarm

#41 User is offline   mike777 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 16,739
  • Joined: 2003-October-07
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2015-August-05, 14:28

View PostVampyr, on 2015-August-05, 08:10, said:

By the way... the migrants that are causing the main problem in the UK at present are coming from France. How and when did refugees from France become recognised? Is escaping less generous welfare benefits a valid reason to grant asylum?


What is the "main problem" these immigrants are causing? Any suggested solutions, or partial solutions to this "main problem"?

In any event I hope the USA may help by taking some in.

-------------------

Here in the USA the big problem seems to be so many people jumping the queue.
Some basically do not want any border controls or something close to zero, others want a border with greater controlled entry.

This used to be much less of an issue when migrants were granted something close to zero in welfare benefits but paid something in taxes. Today that is thought of as cruel or worse.
0

#42 User is offline   blackshoe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,594
  • Joined: 2006-April-17
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2015-August-05, 15:00

View Postmike777, on 2015-August-05, 14:28, said:

What is the "main problem" these immigrants are causing? Any suggested solutions, or partial solutions to this "main problem"?

In any event I hope the USA may help by taking some in.

Good questions, but as for the US, maybe we should find a solution to our own immigration problems first.
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
1

#43 User is offline   mike777 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 16,739
  • Joined: 2003-October-07
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2015-August-05, 15:07

View Postblackshoe, on 2015-August-05, 15:00, said:

Good questions, but as for the US, maybe we should find a solution to our own immigration problems first.


OK what do you see as the big main problem or problems? Any suggested solutions or partial solutions?
0

#44 User is offline   blackshoe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,594
  • Joined: 2006-April-17
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2015-August-05, 15:59

The big main problem is the influx of hard-core criminals connected with the drug trade. I think a good first step would be to eliminate the so-called "war on drugs" and everything attached to it. I do not think closing our borders, or putting up a fence, or a wall, would be helpful in any way.

I think that if someone wants to come here, be productive, and join our society (as opposed to bringing along a microcosm of his or her own), then more power to him. If he wants to come here, commit crimes, live off the productivity of the rest of us, then he ought to be denied entry. If he lies about why he wants to come here (surprise, surprise!) then when he is found out, he should be deported — after making reparations (I don't mean jail time) for any harm he's caused others here.
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
0

#45 User is offline   Aberlour10 

  • Vugrapholic
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,018
  • Joined: 2004-January-06
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:At the Rhine River km 772,1

Posted 2015-August-05, 16:38

View PostVampyr, on 2015-August-05, 08:10, said:

By the way... the migrants that are causing the main problem in the UK at present are coming from France. How and when did refugees from France become recognised? Is escaping less generous welfare benefits a valid reason to grant asylum?


A german journalist talked with a group of refugees ( from Central Africa, Pakistan, Syria..) in "jungle" of Calais. All of them have tried to get to GB for a months. He asked them for the reasons why dont they want to stay in France.

The reasons they talked about:

There are no "jungles" in GB ( "jungle" of Calais" = self made slum near a rubbish damp. In GB you may get fast into hotel room.

In France refugees wait for the decission "accepted or not accepted" 2 years, in GB 2 months

The "accepted rate" in France = 10% in GB near 60%

The language,, all of them speak english ( very different skills), no one french.



Preempts are Aberlour's best bridge friends
1

#46 User is offline   kenberg 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 11,053
  • Joined: 2004-September-22
  • Location:Northern Maryland

Posted 2015-August-05, 16:57

View PostPassedOut, on 2015-August-05, 08:58, said:

I believe that culture and religion (which I consider to be tightly linked) do matter. But I can't think of any way that race matters. My experience has been that race doesn't matter at all, except for people's reactions to folks who look different.


I want to be sure that I understand you. Are you saying that race doesn't matter or that race shouldn't matter. I would happily agree that it shouldn't matter. But it does. And I would not underestimate the impact of people's reactions. People's reactions are a lot of what drives race problems in this country, and I don't regard those problems as minor.

But I think I have a larger point. I predict that Europe as a whole will not commit to handling both the large number of current refugees and the expected numbers continuing indefinitely into the future. Myself, I find this extremely understandable, I have no plans to explain to them that they have not met my expectations. But for whatever the reason, the problem will be beyond them. Or so I predict.

But, as mentioned, this does not have to mean that nothing can be done. In awful events, you often cannot do everything, you usually could do something. I suggest moving beyond whether it is a swarm or a tide, and instead choosing what will be done and what will not be done. Possibly, I don't know but possibly, a way can be found for some to stay where they are. They don't like it there, I get that. That is not difficult to understand. I wouldn't like it there. Maybe some can be moved to other areas of the same country. I don't know. But it seems pretty clear to me that having everyone who wishes to go to the UK just hop on a boat is not going to work.

Quite some years back we went into Somalia in force to feed people. That went pretty well. Then we tried to reorganize their society. That didn't go so well. There might be a lesson there.
Ken
0

#47 User is offline   PassedOut 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,662
  • Joined: 2006-February-21
  • Location:Upper Michigan
  • Interests:Music, films, computer programming, politics, bridge

Posted 2015-August-05, 17:46

View Postkenberg, on 2015-August-05, 16:57, said:

I want to be sure that I understand you. Are you saying that race doesn't matter or that race shouldn't matter. I would happily agree that it shouldn't matter. But it does. And I would not underestimate the impact of people's reactions. People's reactions are a lot of what drives race problems in this country, and I don't regard those problems as minor.

I don't either.

Problems arise when immigrants bring with them, and cling to, cultural and religious ideas at odds with those of the place where they move. FGM is an extreme example. Those are the sorts problems that the immigrants themselves need to solve.

Problems with race go the opposite direction.

(Have to go now. Maybe more later...)
The growth of wisdom may be gauged exactly by the diminution of ill temper. — Friedrich Nietzsche
The infliction of cruelty with a good conscience is a delight to moralists — that is why they invented hell. — Bertrand Russell
0

#48 User is offline   Vampyr 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 10,611
  • Joined: 2009-September-15
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:London

Posted 2015-August-06, 04:51

View Postblackshoe, on 2015-August-05, 12:49, said:

I do not think anybody gets to decide what population density we should have here. Or what size houses and lots we should have.


Perhaps not, but to then tell countries like England and the Netherlands you have no more room is just taking the piss.
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones -- Albert Einstein
0

#49 User is offline   y66 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,496
  • Joined: 2006-February-24

Posted 2015-August-06, 06:53

View Postblackshoe, on 2015-August-05, 15:59, said:

The big main problem is the influx of hard-core criminals connected with the drug trade. I think a good first step would be to eliminate the so-called "war on drugs" and everything attached to it. I do not think closing our borders, or putting up a fence, or a wall, would be helpful in any way.

I think that if someone wants to come here, be productive, and join our society (as opposed to bringing along a microcosm of his or her own), then more power to him. If he wants to come here, commit crimes, live off the productivity of the rest of us, then he ought to be denied entry. If he lies about why he wants to come here (surprise, surprise!) then when he is found out, he should be deported — after making reparations (I don't mean jail time) for any harm he's caused others here.

The big main problem is the influx of hard core criminals connected with the drug trade? Even the Wall Street Journal reports that this is a myth.

A good first step would be to eliminate the so-called "war on drugs"? The U.S. funded war on drugs (hardly so-called) has been a total cluster f**k from day one (over a trillion dollars spent since the 70s with net negative results) and has most definitely exacerbated the immigration problem by strengthening narco-cartels and narco-terrorism and destabilizing governments from Mexico to Bolivia. Even the Washington Times reports that the Obama administration gets this. Libertarians obviously got this before the war on drugs was even conceived.

The first step in implementing a semi-rational immigration policy is for Congress to pass one. The Senate did this on June 27, 2013. Not rational enough? Spare me.
If you lose all hope, you can always find it again -- Richard Ford in The Sportswriter
0

#50 User is offline   kenberg 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 11,053
  • Joined: 2004-September-22
  • Location:Northern Maryland

Posted 2015-August-06, 07:10

Is there room?

We have room, of course we do. We hear of illegal immigrants living in groups of ten or more in an apartment meant for three but this is not related to lack of space in the nation. There is plenty of elbow room in Montana. Quite possibly I would enjoy living in Montana but it is not a natural destination for most immigrants.

You never know who is going to go where and with what result. The Hmong have settled in Minneapolis/St. Paul. The Wik says "The 2010 U.S. Census stated there were 66,000 ethnic Hmong in Minneapolis-St. Paul, giving it the largest urban Hmong population in the world". There is also the amusing note that "In 2012 McDonald's introduced its first Hmong language advertising in the United States at a restaurant in Minneapolis. However it was unintelligible to Hmong speakers"

I don't get back to St. Paul that often (I grew up there) but from what I gather, this counts as a success story. (I mean the Hmong migration there is a success. Perhaps my absence is also seen as a success but we can skip over that.)

And that, I think, is the point. Some things work, some don't, and it is a mistake to embark on a plan that will predictably fail, regardless of moral arguments about what we "should" do.
Ken
0

#51 User is offline   Aberlour10 

  • Vugrapholic
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,018
  • Joined: 2004-January-06
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:At the Rhine River km 772,1

Posted 2015-August-06, 09:01

Germany faces with huge problems these days, up to 600.000 are expected only in this year. German bureaucracy,( pretty effective in "normal" times) is not able to handle it anymore- The main problem: over 50% of them are not refugees but economic immigrants from Balkan states, with 0.1% chance to get asylum here. Any pressure on these people to leave doesnt work, if they have to leave, no later than a few weeks they are back. (Schengen Threaty makes it easy)
Preempts are Aberlour's best bridge friends
0

#52 User is offline   Vampyr 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 10,611
  • Joined: 2009-September-15
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:London

Posted 2015-August-06, 09:43

View PostAberlour10, on 2015-August-06, 09:01, said:

Germany faces with huge problems these days, up to 600.000 are expected only in this year. German bureaucracy,( pretty effective in "normal" times) is not able to handle it anymore- The main problem: over 50% of them are not refugees but economic immigrants from Balkan states, with 0.1% chance to get asylum here. Any pressure on these people to leave doesnt work, if they have to leave, no later than a few weeks they are back. (Schengen Threaty makes it easy)


Even in a country without Schengen (well, the Channel can be seen as primarily an open border, with its tunnel and ferries) economic migrants just disappear into the woodwork. They can't be deported if they can't be found.
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones -- Albert Einstein
0

#53 User is offline   Aberlour10 

  • Vugrapholic
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,018
  • Joined: 2004-January-06
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:At the Rhine River km 772,1

Posted 2015-August-06, 14:30

View PostVampyr, on 2015-August-06, 09:43, said:

Even in a country without Schengen (well, the Channel can be seen as primarily an open border, with its tunnel and ferries) economic migrants just disappear into the woodwork. They can't be deported if they can't be found.


I wrote only about people who let them official register as a refugees. The number of immigrants living in "underground" is much much higher and a separate issue. These registered ( mostly from Albania, Serbia, Kosovo or Montenegro) return fast after leaving with new names and stories about "losing passport and documents on the run" etc etc,
Preempts are Aberlour's best bridge friends
0

#54 User is offline   kenberg 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 11,053
  • Joined: 2004-September-22
  • Location:Northern Maryland

Posted 2015-August-06, 15:15

I read these European responses with interest. To me, it sounds like one hell of a problem. But I don't know anything.

Now I have to go watch some Republicans debate. I am not sure that they know anything either. Except for Trump He knows everything. Just ask him.
Ken
0

#55 User is offline   mike777 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 16,739
  • Joined: 2003-October-07
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2015-August-06, 19:24

View PostVampyr, on 2015-August-06, 09:43, said:

Even in a country without Schengen (well, the Channel can be seen as primarily an open border, with its tunnel and ferries) economic migrants just disappear into the woodwork. They can't be deported if they can't be found.


Immigrants coming for economic reasons is a good reason, you seem to view it as a negative. I grant jumping the queue is a problem. See my previous posts on this issue.
0

#56 User is offline   Vampyr 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 10,611
  • Joined: 2009-September-15
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:London

Posted 2015-August-06, 22:51

View Posty66, on 2015-August-06, 06:53, said:

The big main problem is the influx of hard core criminals connected with the drug trade? Even the Wall Street Journal reports that this is a myth.


I couldn't read the article, but thanks anyway for posting it. The remark you were replying to was so weird I wasn't sure it wasn't a joke.
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones -- Albert Einstein
0

#57 User is offline   kenberg 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 11,053
  • Joined: 2004-September-22
  • Location:Northern Maryland

Posted 2015-August-07, 08:00

View Posty66, on 2015-August-06, 06:53, said:

The big main problem is the influx of hard core criminals connected with the drug trade? Even the Wall Street Journal reports that this is a myth.

A good first step would be to eliminate the so-called "war on drugs"? The U.S. funded war on drugs (hardly so-called) has been a total cluster f**k from day one (over a trillion dollars spent since the 70s with net negative results) and has most definitely exacerbated the immigration problem by strengthening narco-cartels and narco-terrorism and destabilizing governments from Mexico to Bolivia. Even the Washington Times reports that the Obama administration gets this. Libertarians obviously got this before the war on drugs was even conceived.

The first step in implementing a semi-rational immigration policy is for Congress to pass one. The Senate did this on June 27, 2013. Not rational enough? Spare me.


in my twenties I knew several people who used LSD. Now I don't know any. LSD and pot are different, meth and heroin is different again. Myself, I think smoking pot is stupid but I used to drink 154 proof rum so who am I to give lessons.

Some people have decent survival instincts, some don't. Exactly what society owes the latter group in terms of protecting them from their own stupidity is a tough question.

Basically, when speaking of the problems with drugs, we should stipulate which drugs. I see no reason to waste resources stopping people from using pot, but it would seem strange to allow anyone to buy heroin legally but require me to get a prescription to get a lotion for a rash.
Ken
0

#58 User is offline   y66 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,496
  • Joined: 2006-February-24

Posted 2015-August-07, 08:45

View PostVampyr, on 2015-August-06, 22:51, said:

I couldn't read the article, but thanks anyway for posting it. The remark you were replying to was so weird I wasn't sure it wasn't a joke.

Paywalled. Sorry. Here's the gist:

Quote

By JASON L. RILEY July 14, 2015 7:33 p.m. ET
Is the conversation that Republicans want to have about immigration any more serious than the one Democrats want to have about race?

The Republican presidential field sports no shortage of individuals capable of speaking intelligently about America’s broken immigration system. Sens. Marco Rubio and Lindsey Graham have drafted legislation on the issue. Jeb Bush co-wrote an entire book on the subject. And Rick Perry ran a border state with the nation’s second-largest immigrant population for 14 years. So why is Donald Trump, whose comments about immigrants and crime are as ugly as they are uninformed, doing all the talking?

The candidates who expect to outlast Mr. Trump in the primaries are no doubt eyeing his supporters. But Republicans would do better to focus on swing voters, whom they might lose if Mr. Trump’s position on immigration is perceived as the GOP’s. Mr. Trump is bringing heat to a debate that needs more light, and other candidates have an opportunity to provide it.

They might start by pointing out that numerous studies going back more than a century have shown that immigrants—regardless of nationality or legal status—are less likely than the native population to commit violent crimes or to be incarcerated. A new report from the Immigration Policy Center notes that while the illegal immigrant population in the U.S. more than tripled between 1990 and 2013 to more than 11.2 million, “FBI data indicate that the violent crime rate declined 48%—which included falling rates of aggravated assault, robbery, rape, and murder. Likewise, the property crime rate fell 41%, including declining rates of motor vehicle theft, larceny/robbery, and burglary.”

A separate IPC paper from 2007 explains that this is not a function of well-behaved high-skilled immigrants from India and China offsetting misdeeds of Latin American newcomers. The data show that “for every ethnic group without exception, incarceration rates among young men are lowest for immigrants,” according to the report. “This holds true especially for the Mexicans, Salvadorans, and Guatemalans who make up the bulk of the undocumented population.”

It also holds true in states with large populations of illegal residents. A 2008 report by the Public Policy Institute of California found that immigrants are underrepresented in the prison system. “The incarceration rate for foreign-born adults is 297 per 100,000 in the population, compared [with] 813 per 100,000 for U.S.-born adults,” the study concludes. “The foreign-born, who make up roughly 35% of California’s adult population, constitute 17% of the state prison population.”

High-profile incidents, like the recent arrest of a Mexican national in the horrific shooting death of a young woman in San Francisco, can give the impression that immigrants are more likely to commit violent crimes. But the alleged killer is no more representative of Mexican immigrants than Dylann Roof is representative of white people.

If you lose all hope, you can always find it again -- Richard Ford in The Sportswriter
0

#59 User is offline   y66 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,496
  • Joined: 2006-February-24

Posted 2015-August-07, 08:55

Alvaro Vargas Llosa addresses and discredits 7 other myths about immigration in the U.S. in this Forbes story:

Quote

Myth 1: There are more immigrants than ever and these immigrants break the mold of previous waves.

Between 1860 and 1920, fourteen percent of the population was foreign-born. The average for the 20th century is 10-plus percent. The proportion is not different today—about 13 percent. Until the 1880s immigration originated in northern and western Europe but in subsequent decades they came from southern, central and eastern Europe, which was culturally, politically and economically different. Not to mention Asians, who arrived in significant numbers.

Myth 2: Immigrants migrate because they are very poor.

The poorest people migrate internally. Rich countries such as South Korea have sent many migrants to the U.S. while Bangladeshi women, who are very poor, have migrated little even in Asia, the region with the highest rate of migration. Europe was a net exporter of people until 1980. Family ties, occupational preference, distressed conditions at home and historical ties matter. U.S. involvement in Cuba, the Philippines and the Dominican Republic in the early the 20th century was a critical factor in the movement of citizens from those countries to America. Business interests were key at various times in pushing for the legal hiring of Mexicans.

Myth 3: These immigrants are culturally different and threaten the American way of life.

Immigrants are religious, family-oriented, entrepreneurial and no more prone to crime than natives. Seventy percent of Hispanics who moved to the U.S. in the last two decades are Catholic (one fifth are “born again” Christians) and 23 percent are Protestant. One in two undocumented households has couples with children; only thirteen percent of them are headed by single parents—against one third of native households. The percentage of immigrant workers who are self-employed mirrors that of natives. Immigrant-led gentrification has revived neighborhoods from New York to Florida. Adjusted for age, the proportion of immigrants who are criminals mirrors that of natives.

Myth 4: Present-day immigrants do not assimilate, unlike previous waves.

About forty percent of newcomers speak reasonable English anyway, but the three-generation pattern echoes that of previous immigrants: the second generation is bilingual but speaks English better and the third generation speaks only English. By the third generation, out-marriage is strong among immigrants. A century ago, seventeen percent of second-generation Italian immigrants married non-Italians while 20 percent of second-generation Mexicans marry non-Hispanics today (even though, given the numbers, it is easier for them to marry another Mexican.) Second-generation immigrants do better than their parents, as in the past.

Myth 5: Low-skilled workers take away jobs, lower salaries and hurt the economy.

As producers and consumers, illegal immigrants enlarge the economic pie by at least $36 billion a year. That number would triple if they were legal—various studies point to a $1 trillion impact on GDP in ten years. Low-skilled workers fulfill a need by taking jobs others do not want, letting natives move up the scale. Without them employers would need to pay higher salaries, making those products and services more expensive. They have a tiny negative effect on wages at the lowest end that is offset by a rise in the wages of those who move up—the net effect is a 1.8% rise.

Myth 6: A flexible system would mean an invasion of foreigners.

Undocumented immigration is self-regulating. When there is demand for immigrant work, they come in large numbers; in times of recession, the flow stops. Between 2005 and 2010 net immigration came down to zero. Legalizing this undocumented market would maintain the dynamic. Since the large number of undocumented people implies that legal barriers have not been very effective, it is safe to assume that market forces would be similar in a flexible system. Mexico is progressing and the problem for the U.S. will soon be how to attract more foreign labor!

Myth 7: Immigrants don´t pay taxes and cost more than they contribute.

Immigrants pay many local and state levies, including real estate and sales taxes, and about $7 billion in Social Security taxes. Between the 1970s and the 1990s they represented $25 billion more in government revenue than what they cost. They would contribute much more if they were documented. Most immigrant children have at least one parent who is a citizen, so counting all of them as part of the cost of immigration is deceptive. The welfare state was never a “pull” factor: until after World War II immigrants were not entitled to relief programs. Immigrants did not cause government spending to grow by a factor of 50 in one century.

Álvaro Vargas Llosa is a Peruvian-Spanish writer and political commentator on international affairs with emphasis on Latin America. He is also the writer and presenter of a documentary series for National Geographic on contemporary Latin American history that is being shown around the world.

Vargas Llosa is the son of writer and Nobel Prize laureate Mario Vargas Llosa and the brother of UNHCR representative Gonzalo Vargas Llosa and photographer Morgana Vargas Llosa. He is married, has a son and a daughter, and lives in Washington, D.C.

Álvaro Vargas Llosa is a Senior Fellow at the Independent Institute, who has been a nationally syndicated columnist for the Washington Post Writers Group, and is the author of the book Liberty for Latin America, which obtained the Sir Anthony Fisher International Memorial Award for its contribution to the cause of freedom in 2005.
If you lose all hope, you can always find it again -- Richard Ford in The Sportswriter
0

#60 User is offline   blackshoe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,594
  • Joined: 2006-April-17
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2015-August-07, 10:18

My comment about the criminal element was not a statistical one. Some of the "illegals" coming from south of the border are criminals. Some of them are very violent. Some of them are associated with the drug trade, and with foreign drug cartels. That's a problem. Note that I did not say the solution is to close the border, or crack down on illegal immigration. If they want to come here and be productive members of our society, let 'em come. If they want to come here and commit crimes, no.

At the behest of some very misguided people, we tried an experiment with Prohibition in 1920. That experiment lasted thirteen years, and required amendments to the Constitution both to start and to stop. Now we're embroiled in a "war on drugs" that's been going on since at least 1937, when the same misguided people who pushed through the 18th amendment pushed legislation outlawing marijuana. I have never understood why prohibition of alcohol required a Constitutional Amendment, while prohibition of marijuana, heroin, cocaine, etc apparently does not. But that's a little beside the point, which is why did we not learn from the earlier failure of prohibition? Prohibiting people from ingesting what they want to ingest, whether it be alcohol or any other substance, does not and cannot work.

The violence surrounding the illegal making and selling of alcohol dropped dramatically after 1933, and so did the price of booze. Would anyone be surprised if the same thing happened if we abandoned this ill-fated "war"?
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
2

  • 6 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users