Print 52 comment(s) - last by borismkv.. on Aug 18 at 3:01 PM

Effort to curb illegal immigration from America's southern neighbor heats up

They're no 192-foot Goodyear BlimpTM, but at 72-feet long, and 40-feet tall the hulking white addition to the Texas skyline strikes an intimidating presence.  That is, it would if you could see it -- the special helium blimp floats at between 2,000-3,000 feet in the air, capable of staying aloft for up to two weeks at a time.

I. From the "War on Terror" to the "War on Drugs"

The floater is produced by a large U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) contractor named Raven Industries.  Raven Industries prefers the term "Aerostat" to blimp to avoid any sort of trademark conflicts.

2011 marked a landmark year for Raven Industries with over 15 of the South Dakota-based company's floaters deployed to battlefields in Afghanistan and Iraq, including the contested city of Kabul, a key base for America's occupying force in Afghanistan.  Sales of the blimps helped Raven Industries pull in $381M+ USD in revenue in 2011 [source].

Unofficially dubbed "The Eye in the Sky" or "The Floating Eye" by servicepeople, the DOD is now offering up some of the prized blimps to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agency and its parent, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for use in policing the Mexican border.

The Border Patrol preps the Aerostar for a test launch. [Image Source: U.S. CBP]

The Aerostar will be equipped with the "Kestrel" wide-area scanning sensor from Logos Technologies and the Wescam sensor from L-3 Communications, which provides narrower range multi-imaging.

II. Is the Price Right?

Equipped with sophisticated video and infrared sensors, the blimps cost the DOD between $1M USD and $5M USD, according to The Wall Street Journal (officially the cost and configurations are classified).  But if the CBP and DHS enjoy their free trial, they can pick up virtually the whole fleet for $27M USD.

But the CBP says it is wary of jumping in too fast.  It's still reeling from the DHS's decision to pull the controversial billion dollar "electric fence" initiative, which would have used cameras, radar, and other devices to create a wireless sensor network spanning the entire border.

The 2011 Congressional budget for the DHS [PDF] allocated $9.8B USD to the CBP, of which between $100M and $130M USD is reserved for equipment, according to a WSJ interview with Mark Borkowski, assistant commissioner at the CBP's Office of Technology Innovation and Acquisition.

The Aerostar in flight over Afghanistan in Sept. 2011. [Image Source: Reuters]

The Raven Industries Aerostar would be a deal in a way, but they would also drain between a third and fourth of the yearly equipment budget.  Thus the CBP is also considering alternatives.

It's already field testing modified Predator drones, an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) used extensively by the DOD.  Also on its radar is a rival blimp from TCOM LP of Columbia, Maryland.  The TCOM design is less expensive, but also less subtle -- it's tethered to the ground by a long communications cable.

But tests of both the TCOM blimp and the Raven Industries design are still in progress in east Texas, with the CBP uncertain whether they will be a good fit.  After all, illegal entrants into the country operate in a rather different fashion than Afghani insurgents, and there's substantial differences in the desert landscape as well.

III. Border Policing, Domestic Surveillance are Topics Mired in Controversy

As the DHS steps up its surveillance efforts, there are also tough questions regarding this form of ubiquitous government surveillance.  Some fear the U.S. descending further into a "police state" in which armed flyers and floaters are used to spy on and assault people in urban and suburban America.

And then there's the issue of the enforcement itself.  At 1,969 miles [source] the U.S.-Mexican border is an enforcer's nightmare.  

The issue of illegal immigration has historically been, and is today a hyper-politicized issue, and in an election year tensions are running high.  The only alleviating factor is a surprising reverse migration of immigrants (legal and illegal) returning back to Mexico due to the lack of jobs in America, according to the Pew Hispanic Center [source].

Even with the ebb of net immigration, the flow of unauthorized Mexican nationals adds yet another persistent wrinkle -- the "War on Drugs", first declared by President Richard Nixon in 1971.

In many ways the War on Drugs has earned a place among America's numerous historic overseas conflicts in terms of cost and destruction.  To date it has drained over $1T USD [source].  

Marijuana Mexico
Mexico provides the majority of U.S. marijuana. [Image Source: AFP]

The U.S. Department of Justice estimates that many tons of marijuana are smuggled across the Mexican border per year.  It labels Mexico as the biggest source of marijuana in the U.S., where cultivation is illegal despite being agriculturally viable.

In 2011 the nation budgeted an estimated $15.5B USD [source] to the U.S. Drug Czar to perpetuate this domestic "War" -- 31 times the inflation-adjusted budget Nixon devoted.  Much of the war involved banning the most used illegal drug -- marijuana, a drug top physicians say is less harmful than alcohol or tobacco.  Approximately half of U.S. drug arrests are attributable to marijuana possession.

Experts estimate that the U.S. loses almost $50B USD [source] in potential tax revenue by outlawing marijuana -- roughly $2T USD over the forty years of the war on drugs.  Combined with the net cost, that works out to roughly $3T USD -- enough to pay off a third of the U.S. national debt [source].

IV. Members of Congress Critical of DHS Spending

Some like Texas Rep. Ron Paul (R), who have a front row view of the immigration debate and "War on Drugs" have advocated decriminalizing marijuana.  Rep. Paul is quoted as saying, "And marijuana - I think it's tragic what's happening today in the drug war. Since the early '70s we've spent maybe $200 to $300 billion on the drug war. That's not been any good. This whole effort on the drug war doesn't make any sense at all to me."

Ron Paul
Rep. Ron Paul says spending billions to "fight" a domestic "War on Drugs" is unconstitutional.
[Image Source: AP]

Rep. Paul also supports disbanding the DHS, which at $53B USD constituted approximately 1.4 percent of the $3.83T USD spent by the Obama administration in 2011.

Amid all the controversy -- the war on drugs, the war on illegal immigration, domestic surveillance and the police state -- one perpetual criticism of the blimp --er-- aerostat is easy to lay to rest: "But what if they're shot."

Raven Industries CEO Dan Rykhus comments, "We actually like when they [insurgents] try to shoot at them as there's technology on the blimp that allows us to train the camera on the source of that gunfire."

The aerostats are at near equal-pressure, which means the pressure on the inside of the blimp is almost the same as on the outside.  What that means is that if they are hit, the helium inside won't rush out.

In other words, while buying the blimps may draw the ire of some fiscal conservatives, don't accuse the floaters of being gun fodder for drug traffickers.

Sources: Raven Aerostar, WSJ

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By BillyBatson on 8/15/2012 8:36:48 PM , Rating: 2
I am so glad California doesn't need to import any of that dirt Mexican weed :)

RE: P214
By MrBungle123 on 8/15/2012 9:02:40 PM , Rating: 4
right, they just import the mexicans who grow it for them.

RE: P214
By prophet001 on 8/16/2012 1:27:49 PM , Rating: 2

RE: P214
By MrBlastman on 8/16/2012 11:08:02 AM , Rating: 4
I'm pretty unpopular with my viewpoint but here goes...

dirt[y] Mexican

Weren't we all dirty immigrants at some point? I know my relatives were. I'm half dumb Pollock(austrian depending on what time period you look at), half Irish and both sets of my grandparents were direct descendants from immigrants. My polish grandparents even spoke austrian/polish! My wife's grandparents on both sides are also all Germans whom came from overseas at some point in the past also.

We all immigrated unless you are a native American. Some will argue, "but, we all immigrated legally," and this would be correct. Most of us did. The majority came through New York and were processed through the system like everyone else.

This was, of course, before our immigration policy became oppressive. Now, I live in the southern United States (Georgia), so I'm around quite a bit of immigrants here. There are Chinese, Indians, Vietnamese, Japanese, Africans, Cubans and... Mexicans to name a few. Non-traditional non-caucasian immigrants are the norm here. And, I must say, I love partaking in their cuisine as it is most delectable.

This might come as a shock, being a native Georgian--you'd think I'd be shouting with a burning cross to get the "durned filthy immigrants" out! But, I'm not.

Yes, many of the Mexicans came over illegally. So did the Cubans. I know several Cubans, actually (none of which tell me they'll cut me, mang) and no, I haven't seen their little friends (thank goodness), but all of them are highly intelligent and have worked hard in life. So have all the Mexicans I've met. I'm pretty sure that many of the Mexicans came here illegally that I've encountered, but, I've never checked. Some might actually be legal--I don't know.

But, what I do know, is many of them bust their tails like any other American trying to make a better life for themselves. I have been known to take issue with the immigrants that come here just to make money and send it back to Mexico via a check (as I hate seeing our currency leave the country), but, despite this, I can't hate them no matter how much the media tells me I should. It is as if everyone on the news wants me to loathe them.

But, I don't loathe them. Not at all.

So when I read things like today with Jan Brewer denying younger immigrants public things like driver's licenses just because they've taken the step to become documented, I have to finally stand up and say enough is enough!

If these people have been over here for decades earning a hard living, fitting in with the community and being "legitimate" without ever being that way--I say give them a chance to prove it, legally... rather than ship them off to the cesspool they came from. If they want to learn our language, learn about the tenets of our Constitution, stand before a judge and recite the oath and prove they're worthy as true Americans--let them. If they're willing to pick up a rifle and die for our Country--let them. If they're willing to pay taxes legally--let them.

We, as Americans, can not turn our backs on our heritage. We're a melting pot of individuals and like all conglomerations, not all will be good but... not all will be bad either.

RE: P214
By Apone on 8/16/2012 12:04:12 PM , Rating: 5
@ Mr. Blastman

I'm pretty unpopular with my viewpoint but here goes...

Well your viewpoint is unique, valid, and I agree with it as I myself am a foreign-born U.S. citizen.

We all immigrated unless you are a native American. Some will argue, "but, we all immigrated legally," and this would be correct. Most of us did. The majority came through New York and were processed through the system like everyone else.

Agreed, also President JFK said it best that "We are a nation of immigrants".

But, what I do know, is many of them bust their tails like any other American trying to make a better life for themselves.

I guess, but doesn't "trying to make a better life" include going through the formality of getting U.S. citizenship, opening up bank accounts/credit cards (and not only paying for things with cash) to build credit (to qualify for a car loan or mortgage), becoming fluent in English, and pushing yourself academically & professionally up the career ladder to provide more for your children?

RE: P214
By MrBlastman on 8/16/2012 12:43:37 PM , Rating: 1
I guess, but doesn't "trying to make a better life" include going through the formality of getting U.S. citizenship, opening up bank accounts/credit cards (and not only paying for things with cash) to build credit (to qualify for a car loan or mortgage), becoming fluent in English, and pushing yourself academically & professionally up the career ladder to provide more for your children?

It does, and many do. They are still stigmatized and outcast. Most of them that I suspect are illegal are self-employed, successful business owners that employ many underneath them.

There's no excuse for not paying taxes and trying to integrate. The problem is that right now, so many people are hell-bent on hoisting their pitchforks and torches into the air and refuse to even give them a chance to own up to going legitimate.

Many people would rather ship them away because they are "breedin' babies and pollutin' our soil," which... is wrong. I say give those that have been here for a long time--and productive, a chance to own up and become legal. Remove the looming anvil over their heads.

I bet many would jump at the opportunity to do so.

RE: P214
By RufusM on 8/16/2012 1:00:43 PM , Rating: 2
This is the amnesty argument: We can't get rid of them so let's let them all stay and legalize it. This is an incentive that encourages illegal immigration.

When my great, great grandfather came to the US from Norway on 1882 his incentive was free land. When it comes down to it, behavior is about incentives and dis-incentives.

We need to dis-incentivize illegal immigration by creating conditions that make it less desirable for Mexican people to come here illegally. One thing is tougher laws and better deportation practices. Another is to start working with the Mexican government to clean up their act. Building walls and fences is just a band-aid and doesn't solve the problem; that there's a huge incentive for Mexican people to come here. We need to police the border while change in Mexico happens, but we need to start helping to make that happen too.

RE: P214
By MrBlastman on 8/16/2012 1:04:38 PM , Rating: 2
Mexico's problems aren't our own. Have you looked at our National debt lately? We have no business trying to fix their problems.

What we can do is give current immigrants a path to legality--and at the same time... force them to pay taxes while on it... which will increase the revenue our government receives to help pay down that debt.

Also, this incentive is a one shot deal. It could be coupled with immigration reform making it more desirable and attainable for those south of our border to attempt to reach. We sorely need immigration reform in a positive way.

RE: P214
By Apone on 8/16/2012 1:25:19 PM , Rating: 3
@ RufusM and Mr. Blastman

I agree but the issue is that many foreigners are brainwashed into thinking that "America, the land of opportunity!" is synonymous with "if I come here, I'll be spoonfed the opportunity and can flourish by being complacent" which unfortunately is not true.

This is the amnesty argument: We can't get rid of them so let's let them all stay and legalize it. This is an incentive that encourages illegal immigration.

And this is exactly why I'm not a fan of Obama immigration reform attempts or California Governor Jerry Brown's DREAM Act. Where are the incentives to all of us former immigrants who worked our fingers to the bone coming to the States legally, integrating into the culture, and making it on our own without any help? Is Uncle Sam (or California) going to reimburse me for my undergrad and grad school loans under the DREAM Act?

RE: P214
By RufusM on 8/16/2012 1:31:23 PM , Rating: 3
Amnesty is never a one time thing. The US will get a flood of illegal immigrants when word gets out that it's coming. After amnesty takes effect, that won't stop anyone from continuing to come here illegally. The same problems will still exist and we'll need another amnesty down the road, continuing the cycle.

While there are many illegal who would pay taxes, there are many who would go on entitlement programs so it's not the revenue boon you think it is. Plus it will also attract criminals looking to do business here in the US so there will be more dollars spent on those people. There's just no way to sort the good illegal immigrants from the bad illegal immigrants and the political parties here in the US would never let you give amnesty to some and not to others.

Granted, it's a complex problem but I think Mexico's problem IS our problem since their population is coming to the US in droves. Why not reduce the dollars we spend overseas and spend some getting Mexico in line since it impacts the US? There are plenty of military bases we can cut. For all of the dollars the US has wasted just in Iraq, we could have done a lot to help this problem.

RE: P214
By MrBlastman on 8/16/2012 1:58:26 PM , Rating: 2
Amnesty is never a one time thing. The US will get a flood of illegal immigrants when word gets out that it's coming.

This is why you don't announce it prior to passing. You just do it. One day you come out and say:

"Hey, if you can prove you've worked here x number of years with community references and are currently living here on this day, you've got a shot."

It isn't perfect, but it's better than nothing.

Why not reduce the dollars we spend overseas and spend some getting Mexico in line since it impacts the US?

If people think we spend too much on the war on drugs here in the United States, wait until they try and spend money taking down Mexican drug cartels. Whole cities are routinely massacred in Mexico. It's horrifying.

Thanks but no thanks. Until the Mexican government proves that they can seize control of their own country, pouring money into them is as pointless as sending it to Africa.

RE: P214
By Reclaimer77 on 8/16/2012 2:53:24 PM , Rating: 3
Whole cities are routinely massacred in Mexico. It's horrifying.

Yes, now with weapons straight up GIVEN to them by Holder and Obama!

RE: P214
By Apone on 8/16/2012 3:11:30 PM , Rating: 2
This is why you don't announce it prior to passing. You just do it.

Trust me, you don't have to announce it. News like that spreads ridiculously fast throughout the immigrant community between the U.S. and countries with immigrants looking to come over.

The other issue that immigrants are continuing to exploit is attempting to find, build a relationship with, and eventually marry a U.S. citizen so they can get instant citizenship themselves. It's happening right now to a friend of mine who met his now-spouse on Facebook and it's confusing because we don't know if she truly loves him or married him (ridiculously quickly) to satisfy her agenda (marry a citizen => U.S. citizenship => access to benefits such as my friend's Army G.I. Bill to fund her college education, etc.).

Now my friend's new wife is attempting to set me up with her many single friends from abroad but it's not gonna' happen as I fancy American girls!

RE: P214
By Reclaimer77 on 8/16/12, Rating: 0
RE: P214
By Aenslead on 8/18/2012 1:32:43 AM , Rating: 2
Dear MrBlastman,

Though I completely agree with many of the points you've written, I must disagree with you on this one. Being Mexican and living in one of the most violent cities in the country, I can definitely say: yes, Mexico's problems are yours, because the drug issue is none other than the US' (note I call your country United States, and not 'America', the name of our continent).

"Fast and Furious" only shed some light in what we all knew - US Government is involved in delivering cartels with weapons and ammunition. The currency cartels use around here are US Dollars. It is because the US is the biggest drug consumer of marijuana and cocaine that we have the security issue at hand. Righteous politicians and media calling Mexico a problem, when your very government is feeding that same issue and pretending to help through "Plan Mérida".

Our problem would not exist if it was not because of the high level of drug addicts your country has and the large sums of un-taxed money that moves through the borders. Where do you think all this cash goes to?

And forgive me for being skeptical, but I highly doubt those balloons you guys just paid a couple of millions for are to stop illegal immigrants.

We are, after all, victims of the US' business practices.

RE: P214
By Reclaimer77 on 8/16/12, Rating: 0
RE: P214
By MrBlastman on 8/16/2012 3:27:59 PM , Rating: 2
Your post is just one big emotional mush-fest. I'm not falling for that crap, you'll have to do a lot better than that to convince me our borders should just be wide open.

I'm not arguing they be wide open. I'm just suggesting we let the ones here have a shot at paying taxes--take it or leave it. Besides that, we do need immigration reform, but certainly not wide open borders. For those that want to work hard and make our nation better and more diverse, I see no issue with them.

Dude if an illegal can get a photo ID, that means he can now vote. Hello? You want non-citizens being able to, that's just brilliant.

Umm, you do know you have to be a legal citizen to vote, right? (I know you do)

Just because you have a driver's license doesn't make you a citizen. It does "document you," though. I know many foreign citizens from Europe that have visas to the US--along with a driver's license. What makes a European with a visa any different from a Mexican with one?

The Europeans with visas can't vote, either. They can drive, though, and do it all the time!

Do you agree that this is a nation of laws and we should abide by them and enforce them? I'm sick of all this Jan Brewer hate, it's ridiculous.

Sure I do and you know this quite well from everything I've posted. Jan crossed the line this time. In the past I've tolerated it but this is going too far. If these immigrants are being granted visas, they should be able to drive like any other European, Chinese, Indian, African and so on.

Or does equality not mean anything to you?

There can be no double standard.

It's not about hate, or racism. You're just buying into the hype.

I'm the last person to buy into hype. I watch what, four hours of television a week? I'm quite far off from your typical American. The amount of print I read is mind boggling compared with what your normal citizen reads (nothing). I read from multiple sources and form my own opinion. I'm as contrarian as they come. :)

Unless you live in Arizona and pay taxes there, you frankly have no right to tell them they should ignore their problems because you said so.

I'm a born US citizen. I have every right to speak my mind about whatever I please in the form of an opinion. :P

RE: P214
RE: P214
By Reclaimer77 on 8/16/12, Rating: 0
RE: P214
By MrBlastman on 8/16/2012 4:23:26 PM , Rating: 2
I thought you kept up on this stuff? With a drivers license number, and the stupidly easy to get "temporary" Social Security numbers given out to illegals, they can now "legally" vote.

This is why I'm for requiring people provide either a copy of their birth certificate or certificate of naturalization (both of which can be cross-referenced with government held databases) in order to register to vote.

Surprisingly, even my own state doesn't require a birth certificate but I'm pretty sure they cross-reference all the information to verify my legality.

Jan is doing what our politicians swear an oath to defend, the Constitution. Those visas are illegal. Amnesty is illegal. The "Dream Act" is illegal. And States are supposed to have sovereign rights damnit.

Well, yes, I totally agree States are supposed to have sovereign rights. However, when immigration is concerned, I do have to point out it is a touchy subject. The Federal Government is supposed to handle interstate issues, States intrastate.

Immigration can be argued as being both. Since citizenship is recognized as interstate, the Constitution has authority. Since immigrating involves both--well, you can't exclude one or the other. It could be a combination of the two. However, for entry into our nation and to be recognized as a legal immigrant/visa holder/alien, I believe Federal powers have precendence here. I think that the States should recognize whatever decision the Federal government makes on this (since it concerns an interstate and international issue) and within reason, beyond this recognition, set their own rules/requirements/policies for these individuals once within their respective State borders.

I believe what I stated above can be backed up by the Constitution and I know the Supreme Court thinks this is the case. Please note I don't agree with everything these Supreme Court says--they've made several major mistakes lately.

You know there's only a finite number of people this country can support.

That's a whole different issue and it involves economics. The function of how many people our country can support is complicated and would probably involve a formula that includes the following:

number of citizens/GDP output
determined minimum income for sustainability per person
inflows of currency versus outflows
sum of natural resources and replenishability
industrial strength
tax revenues
net population growth/decline
birth rate
useable landmass to person ratio
Food input (from local sources)
Food imports (from external sources)
Net energy output versus resources to continue it as a function over time

... and so on. I could probably figure out a formula but I guarantee you it isn't a fixed value until you approach an upper limit of population density per land (which we're nowhere near close to). Basically, the more productive we can be to create money and jobs, the bigger the population we can sustain provided we can provide enough food and energy for it. We're not even close right now to hitting the upper bound.

We cannot allow a President to executive order his way to immigration "reform".

I dislike Obama quite a bit--but, he, like Bush before him, realized some form of immigration reform was needed. See above for how it should be divided.

RE: P214
By Reclaimer77 on 8/16/12, Rating: 0
RE: P214
By MrBlastman on 8/16/2012 4:49:10 PM , Rating: 2
I know I sound angry and ranting, and I'm sorry.

No worries. :)

I disagree with both. We need enforcement, whatever the costs, whatever it takes. If we need to fully militarize our southern border, I'm all for it. If we need to build a Berlin wall here, so be it.

Ponder this: Walls are a double-edged sword. They keep people out just as easily and well as they keep people in.

He didn't just do it anyway when Amnesty for Illegals was shot down, he gave the people their say.

He did and he didn't. I can distinctly remember Bush being pro-Mexico while millions of Americans were harping that he should do the opposite. The truth is we've had several Presidents in a row now that don't give a darn about what the people want. It has to stop. :)

RE: P214
By MightyAA on 8/17/2012 11:41:51 AM , Rating: 2
Honestly, I absolutely respect your opinion...

You forgot one type of American. My family tree isn't exactly "immigrant". "Invader?" Scotish who came over with the Virgina colonies. Then proceeded to spread west pushing out the natives. Pre-USA.

Even after, keep in mind that they left the United States and went into 'territories' beyond those old borders. Lots and lots of families who were more or less 'incorporated' as US Citizen when their territories joined the union and nations sold off or lost their claims... So, we've been English, French, Confederates and Mexican without every leaving what today is American soil. And lol... fought in every single major conflict (on both sides) on US soil.

An easy fix
By DrApop on 8/16/2012 10:20:48 AM , Rating: 5
Bring our military home from S. Korea, the middle east, and NATO and let them protect our shores and border. That is their job....not to function as the global police.

Set up or reopen bases along the borders and US shipping ports....thus bringing in billions of dollars in revenue to those regions, states, and the US. The military can then provide appropriate security for the US against drugs, illegal aliens, and other. That is the role of the military to protect and serve and secure America from harm. And it would be a financial boon to the US during these times of economic crisis.

RE: An easy fix
By tamalero on 8/16/2012 11:26:19 AM , Rating: 2
Except, doing that doesn't pay the bills that pillaging other countries offer.

Kirov reporting
By augiem on 8/15/2012 7:39:07 PM , Rating: 2
Let's go say hello.

Might be useful
By Beenthere on 8/15/2012 10:45:50 PM , Rating: 2
When the drug dealers and human traffikers try to shoot down these blimps, an F16 can lock on them and turn them into more desert.

The Amazing Race:
By Manch on 8/16/2012 3:14:16 AM , Rating: 2
They should start filming the illegals trying to cross. It would make great reality TV. If they get passed the border and make it to a consulate they win a two year defferrment!

What's the point?
By FITCamaro on 8/16/2012 7:26:48 AM , Rating: 2
Not like our current administration gives a damn what or who crosses the border right now. The only thing they want to make sure of with illegal immigrants is that they're illegally registered to vote.

By Raiders12 on 8/16/2012 9:18:43 AM , Rating: 1
Anyone with an ounce of logic knows marijuana is harmless. The scientific reports claiming "brain damage" were proven erroneous decades ago, yeah suffocate monkeys with the equivalent of 50 joints and see what happens. The FDA even has the "overdose" amount set at 30 lbs.....THIRTY FREAKIN POUNDS.

The ignorance is generations deep, including my own parents who claim to me that it was make me retarded, start smoking crack, and lead to me imagining I can fly out my window. In reality, it makes me enjoy a nice read, or a game of Madden.

Alcohol leads to so many health issues and broken families day in and day out, yet remains legal. But this counter argument is a dead horse. The REAL counter argument is the ECONOMIC benefits. Our nation is profiting off the false "war on drugs" and our criminal justice system. Too many people imprisoned over this 100% natural plant. The annual crim.justice cost is around $53 billion, but thats what happens when you establish profit off militarism on the civilian populace. Allow shops, distribution centers, medical centers, regulators, taxes, and low level retail jobs to GROW (pun intended).

The funniest thing about the ignorance about the plant, is it mostly comes from right leaning, neonazi Christians who ignore the book of Genesis and the claim that God put seeds on the Earth to be eaten and enjoyed.

RE: Truthiness....
By FaaR on 8/16/2012 11:49:39 AM , Rating: 1
Smoking marijuana is no better than smoking tobacco from a health perspective, you'll fill up your lungs with an aerosol containing carbon monoxide, microscopic ash particles, tar and all kinds of other byproducts of conbustion, including cancerous substances.

Old news
By borismkv on 8/18/2012 3:01:19 PM , Rating: 2
Fort Huachuca in Arizona (Army base that goes right up to the border) has been flying one of these suckers for years. They use it to watch the borders of the military base, but it also keeps tabs on the border outside of base for the border patrol. Funny thing is, though, any time it rains (Which is very often during the monsoon season) they have to haul it down so it doesn't break off its tether in the wind (which it did once, and then deflated and crashed on someone's house). That means that illegal immigrants just have to wait til it rains and then cross over. Doesn't really help much.

The War On Drugs...
By sh3rules on 8/15/12, Rating: -1
RE: The War On Drugs...
By Reclaimer77 on 8/15/12, Rating: -1
RE: The War On Drugs...
By tayb on 8/15/2012 7:27:27 PM , Rating: 5
I fail to see how legalizing marijuana would be any different than the legalization and regulation of alcohol. Shipped illegally across the borders? Why would they continue to do that long term?

Legalizing marijuana, and most drugs for that matter, would essentially end the war on drugs which immediately saves tens of billions annually. Then you add in the added tax revenue, which will be substantial, and the decreased prison population, which will also be substantial, and you're talking about net economic effects to the tune of $50+ billion a year.

Not to mention that if marijuana were to be legalized legitimate farms and businesses would pop up all over the country and hire workers. Distribution lines, factory workers, farms, drivers, packaging, etc.

This sort of thing seems like it should be right up your alley. Cut spending, cut federal programs, cut federal laws, etc.

RE: The War On Drugs...
By Captain Orgazmo on 8/15/2012 7:36:22 PM , Rating: 2
I lean conservative, but yeah, stupid to keep a relatively harmless plant illegal (while tobacco, alcohol, and opiate painkillers are legal). Legalize, and the market will drive prices through the floor and take a big chunk out of the cartel and street/biker gangs throughout North America. And in addition to the points you mention, prevent kids from being exposed to other drugs through dealers.

RE: The War On Drugs...
By Reclaimer77 on 8/15/12, Rating: -1
RE: The War On Drugs...
By AskMe4Pars on 8/15/2012 9:56:40 PM , Rating: 2
I agree, this would stimulate the economy especially if all drugs were decriminalized. Even if 50% of the money saved/earned through taxes was used on treatment programs the country would be much better off. It is never going to happen though. Privatized prison systems, the DEA, boarder partol, drug courts, and tens of thousands of police officers dedicated to fighting a non winnable war ensure that we will continue to fight a war that cannot be won. It is so ingrained into our system, politically and economically that anything will change. We are sheeple.

RE: The War On Drugs...
By inperfectdarkness on 8/16/2012 3:12:50 AM , Rating: 4
This. And once pot is legal and the benefits to it being legal are understood, the push to make all narcotics legal will soon follow. Drugs will become simply another taxed vice. Prison populations will decrease by 25-50%. The DEA can be eliminated, and the FDA can turn a healthy profit from regulation. The USDA can stop subsidizing farmers to not grow crops. Gang violence will plummet, since the key racket gangs profit from will be defunct. Black markets will shrink substantially, since fencing stolen products directly for drugs will be impossible.

But perhaps the best benefit of all is that all the idiots who lack self-control will OD within the first 6 months, and the gene-pool will naturally chlorinate itself.

RE: The War On Drugs...
By Ringold on 8/16/2012 6:23:23 AM , Rating: 2
And once pot is legal and the benefits to it being legal are understood, the push to make all narcotics legal will soon follow

I've got a feeling America isn't quite that libertarian, though it wouldn't be a bad thing, because...

all the idiots who lack self-control will OD within the first 6 months, and the gene-pool will naturally chlorinate itself.

If people wanted it, they could load up at WalMart and have at it, after duly paying the appropriate local sales tax and embedded corporate taxes on their narcotic of choice. Most of the price of street drugs is dealer mark-up and inefficiency involved in illegal distribution, so we could tax the bejesus out of it and WalMart could still sell it for a little less, and everybody makes a buck.

Only downside? We're too much a bleeding-heart society.. If those idiots OD but screw up, then we just end up paying for expensive care for the rest of their miserable brain-damaged lives. Same thing if they just abuse the wrong things for too long; I can see Nancy Pelosi wanting to usher them on to SSI disability.

No such particular health risks with just marijuana, though.

RE: The War On Drugs...
By RufusM on 8/16/2012 10:49:52 AM , Rating: 2
This is the problem with having government funded medical. Having government funded medical means the government has an interest in controlling what people do in their own homes: smoking, alcohol, drugs etc. because they need to control costs.

People need to be allowed to be stupid and make their own mistakes. If, in the process of being stupid, people break the law then they will pay the price for breaking the law. If people do it in the privacy of their home then they're on their own.

It's called responsibility; something today's victim-mentality, bail-out society knows nothing about.

RE: The War On Drugs...
By Ammohunt on 8/16/2012 11:14:31 AM , Rating: 3
But perhaps the best benefit of all is that all the idiots who lack self-control will OD within the first 6 months, and the gene-pool will naturally chlorinate itself.

Idiots like kids in their late teens early 20ies? Who might be very intelligent but lack basic common sense. These substances being illegal keep many away from their abuse; Take that deterrent away and it’s your child making a bad choice one night being culled…

RE: The War On Drugs...
By MrBlastman on 8/16/2012 11:19:30 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly and this is why as logical as the argument for total legalization might be, I can't support it.

RE: The War On Drugs...
By inperfectdarkness on 8/18/2012 5:41:43 AM , Rating: 2
Entirely disagree. Making something illegal has always increased the allure of it. We did much better on making cigarettes a social-taboo via marketing and ads than we did with making alcohol illegal by legislating it.

RE: The War On Drugs...
By Reclaimer77 on 8/18/2012 9:28:44 AM , Rating: 2
Pot is one thing, but you're nuts if you think the American population is going to embrace hard drugs like heroin and crack being legalized.

Frankly I'm not even sure how I feel about that prospect. That's WAY different than the alcohol prohibition argument, and you know it.

RE: The War On Drugs...
By FITCamaro on 8/16/2012 7:23:48 AM , Rating: 2
You're incredibly naive if you think the war on drugs ends because marijuana becomes legal. There's still heroin, cocaine, PCP, LSD, ecstasy, meth, and anything else I can't think of. And there will still be illegal pot. As Reclaimer said, the government would try to regulate the sale and distribution of it to turn it into a revenue stream. So there would be a black market for it just like there is with cigarettes.

Honestly I'm a firm believer that two things need to happen with drug enforcement. One is the federal government ends its current role in drug enforcement. They stop unconstitutionally enforcing drug policy. Let the states determine what they want legal. Now most though would only want to make pot legal. I think few sane people will argue that all the rest of the drugs I listed should be outlawed. But after the government gives up its current self-endowed, illegitimate authority, I think the states should come together, decide which drugs they want to give the federal government the power to enforce policy on, and pass a constitutional amendment to give them the power to enforce it.

Even now though the federal government has the power to enforce our borders to stop anything illegal from crossing them. Be it people or drugs.

RE: The War On Drugs...
By Ammohunt on 8/16/2012 11:17:35 AM , Rating: 2
I could not agree more other than provide for a common defense the federal governments should stay out of states business.

RE: The War On Drugs...
By malcolmkyle on 8/16/2012 10:17:28 AM , Rating: 2
Mexico's gruesome civil war is clearly a product of the failed policy of Prohibition.

Alcohol Prohibition was a tremendous failure due to the incredible amount of crime and disorder it created. Human nature hasn't changed since the 1920s when the distribution of liquor was turned over to a whole new group of criminal entrepreneurs. Drug Prohibition has turned Mexico into a civil war zone. Dangerous mind altering substances are again being manufactured, smuggled and sold by criminals. Our intentions in prohibiting these substances may well be good but the result of our inability to recognize the futility of such an action will both deepen and prolong the agony caused by this extremely counter-productive and dangerous policy.

RE: The War On Drugs...
By Ammohunt on 8/16/2012 11:21:29 AM , Rating: 2
So with that logic every country that prohibits drugs should have open drug gang warfare in its streets? Don’t fool yourself Mexico’s prior societal/cultural problems allowed the cartels to do what they are doing now in Mexico.

RE: The War On Drugs...
By tamalero on 8/16/2012 11:28:44 AM , Rating: 2
yeah colombia too? Vietnam too? and every single country that makes a living by selling drugs, opiates and other stuff to the good 'ol 'Murrica?

RE: The War On Drugs...
By Brandon Hill on 8/15/2012 8:07:41 PM , Rating: 3
I don't think people really think it through about what it would be like if it was legalized. I mean what it would REALLY be like.

Frito-Lay (PEPSICO) stock would skyrocket :)

RE: The War On Drugs...
By gglenn on 8/15/2012 8:50:41 PM , Rating: 2
So is the War on Poverty.

"Folks that want porn can buy an Android phone." -- Steve Jobs

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki