The Fentanyl Crisis thread

[Markk]

Mark: According to this it is true.
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article ... ief-or-not

Gad: You're missing some important nuance. Look at those tables carefully. Right-wing politicians gloss over these numbers to make it appear like Trump isn't that bad. When talking about possibilities like Guantanamo Bay, understanding that chart will matter a lot.

Well given that the article was published just 6 days after he took office for the first time, I find what you are saying is a desperate attempt with dealing with what it does state in context to my assertion. That between Clinton, Bush, Obama, and Biden, they oversaw over 25 million deportations, if we add those under Biden we are at 30 million. Trump to date is probably still around 3 million.

You asserted however that Trump violated the human rights of the 3 million, and yet refuse to answer whether or not the other presidents did the same.

Go back and read my post, I answered you the first time.

You said a lot of things in your scattered retort, so I am really not sure what is your answer. You did change your assertion from it being human right violations, to eventually justify "unprecedenteed human rights violations." Is that your final answer?

So for the record, Clinton, Bush, Obama, and Biden, were justified to deport 30 some million people, and Trump is not?

[Markk]

Markk, let's say we spend the money to stop 50% of illegal immigration. How much of the supply of illegal fentanyl will that stop from coming into the country?

I ask because about 85% of fentanyl is trafficked by u.s. Citizens.
The other 15% is non-citizens, which includes both those here legally and those not here legally. Why not go after the fentanyl supply from citizens, if you really want to make a dent in supply?

We discussed this at length on the other thread, you might want to read it and catch up. Also you you do understand the the citizen mules once across give the product back to the cartel. We need to go after the fentanyl no matter who is smuggling it in and no matter who is pushing it.

Marcus: Also, although I understand the emotions of cutting down the supply, will that help fight the epidemic most efficiently? If there are other ways to fight the epidemic, such as those focusing on the demand side, that are far less costly than immigration control of a very small percentage of the supply, would you consider those measures first?

We need to do both, and everything possible to fight the epidemic. We need to control the border and what comes in, no matter who or what, not just fentanyl. And what is going out like guns and cash.

thanks

[Gadianton]

You said a lot of things in your scattered retort, so I am really not sure what is your answer.

Trust me, you don't read my responses. Neither does Ajax. Ceeboo probably does. My right-wing friend, just like you and Ajax, doesn't listen. I know exactly what he's saying; he has no idea what I'm saying, because he's too busy thinking about how he's going to 'get me' in his next response.

I quoted your question exactly like this:

did all these presidents violate the human rights of these illegal immigrants for deporting them?

And then I responded exactly like this:

Yes. But nothing like you're fixin' to do. First, previous presidents didn't conduct their operations as showmanship for a bunch of wicked and deranged google-eyed Christians crying for blood. The kind of anger behind Trump from stupid people will eventually justify unprecedenteed human rights violations. Second, the largest part of those violations will be from sending those arrested to Guantanamo Bay or other holding facilities where they can be indefinitely put out of view.

Was it too hard for you to find it this time? I cam make the font bigger next time if it helps.

As for the immigration site you linked, I'll give you a hint: If you study those tables carefully, you'll see that the vast majority of what the site calls "deportations" don't align with my primary concern as noted in the last sentence of the paragraph I just quote from myself. I don't care if you figure it out or not. Canpakes, don't help.

[Markk]

To Gad, Marcus and Physics Guy, thank you so much for your impeccable and well needed arguments in your most recent posts. They added much needed sanity, compassion and justice to this thread!

Another point that is so often not recognized or understood is that the concentrating on criminal prohibition and "war on drugs" approach towards drug abuse and addicts really is not the best way of dealing with the problem. Because of the very nature of drug addiction, the main beneficiaries of that approach are organized crime, and the army of law enforcement officials and bureaucrats needed to police and administer that policy, and whose livelihoods actually depend on the continuation of the very problem for which they are hired to deal with. The harder we crack down on that approach, the higher the risk of drug trafficking, which tends to push up the price of the drugs and the potential profits to be made from pushing them, which is likely to both attract more pushers and the potential number of addicts.

It's similar to how prohibition of alcohol created a golden opportunity for organized crime and resulted in a huge increase in crime rates, including murder.

Are you suggesting we make fentanyl legal, like alcohol?

Also take the time and look at the success of prohibition, in regards to alcoholism, and heath in general, along with other things that go along with alcohol abuse. Since probation, have more people been murdered, or have more people died because of alcohol abuse, alcohol related accidents, murders and crimes induced by alcohol, and suicide because of it?


Also do a little reading on American cities where they legalized drugs like fentanyl....how are they doing?

But I am curious what you solution is to the epidemic?

Thanks

[Markk]

You said a lot of things in your scattered retort, so I am really not sure what is your answer.

Trust me, you don't read my responses. Neither does Ajax. Ceeboo probably does. My right-wing friend, just like you and Ajax, doesn't listen. I know exactly what he's saying; he has no idea what I'm saying, because he's too busy thinking about how he's going to 'get me' in his next response.

I quoted your question exactly like this:

did all these presidents violate the human rights of these illegal immigrants for deporting them?

And then I responded exactly like this:

Yes. But nothing like you're fixin' to do. First, previous presidents didn't conduct their operations as showmanship for a bunch of wicked and deranged google-eyed Christians crying for blood. The kind of anger behind Trump from stupid people will eventually justify unprecedenteed human rights violations. Second, the largest part of those violations will be from sending those arrested to Guantanamo Bay or other holding facilities where they can be indefinitely put out of view.

Was it too hard for you to find it this time? I cam make the font bigger next time if it helps.

LOl, that is a answer? To what? Your assertion was that by Trump deporting people he was violating their civil rights. You are moving the goal posts, clearly. You wrote " You're doubling down exactly as I've explained, Markk. If the last alarm bell wasn't loud enough, you sound the next alarm bell louder, all as a way to justify human rights violations" Present tense.

After I showed you from the link that Clinton (and Bush, and Obama) deported millions of immigrants, you changed your previous present tense un-thought out assertion, to some sort accusation that stupid people will justify future human rights...future tense.

So those presidents before Trump violated there civil rights, but not as bad that "I" am going to do? Lol, ooohkaaay? Also the other presidents deporting immigrants, is a lesser civil rights violation because they did not show boat it? Lol....ooohkaaay?

As for the immigration site you linked, I'll give you a hint: If you study those tables carefully, you'll see that the vast majority of what the site calls "deportations" don't align with my primary concern as noted in the last sentence of the paragraph I just quote from myself. I don't care if you figure it out or not. Canpakes, don't help.

Lol, the site I gave you shows that Clinton deported 12 million immigrants, which you said was not true, remember?

Mark: 'Under Clinton there were over 12 million deportations,"

Gad: " You didn't check hard enough because this obviously isn't true. As I've said before, you don't know anything about things like inflation and immigration law. On the other hand, you do know more than I do about doing drugs."
According to this it is true.

https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article ... ief-or-not

I think the bigger issue here than Ajax, Ceebo, and I, not reading your posts, not to mention mucking through the ad-hom's, is that you don't seem to remember what you write, it keeps changing Gad.

I think it was Twain or Billings that wrote something along the line that "if you tell the truth, you don't have to remember what you said." hich seem to be the case here.


But it seems to be we have established a few things, one, deportation of someone who enters our country illegally IYO, is a violation of their civil rights. Is that fair? and two, that all presidents, at least since Clinton, are guilty of this in varying degrees of civil right violations for deporting illegal immigrants, with showboating it being highest degree of that. Is that also accurate?

[Marcus]

Markk, let's say we spend the money to stop 50% of illegal immigration. How much of the supply of illegal fentanyl will that stop from coming into the country?

I ask because about 85% of fentanyl is trafficked by u.s. Citizens.
The other 15% is non-citizens, which includes both those here legally and those not here legally. Why not go after the fentanyl supply from citizens, if you really want to make a dent in supply?

We discussed this at length on the other thread, you might want to read it and catch up.

You didn't answer or even address my question in the other thread. Others did, such as Gad,

...You're not going to vindicate Trump's mayhem-as-a-solution by pointing to how bad the drug problem is. I've watched plenty of right-wing exploit vids on YouTube about fentanyl and tranq. And yes, it is shocking. But none of this amounts to a bare argument for wasting billions more on deporting working families...

and Canpakes,

...I have said that it remains to be seen if Trump will do some good things. Stuff like killing the 14th Amendment and mass deportations do nothing to resolve the issues you’ve been harping about, like homelessness and fentanyl abuse, or drug use in general...

and Gunnar,

I don't think believe anything relating to fentanyl or other drug trafficking has anything to do with the constitutional right of birthright citizenship or that merely getting rid of that right will do anything to mitigate that problem. Nor do I believe that the stupid war on drugs and the punitive prohibition approach to drug addiction is a sane or effective way to mitigate the problem of widespread drug addiction and overdoses. The biggest beneficiaries of that approach are organized crime and drug traffickers, who know that once they once they can get vulnerable people addicted to their wares, their victims are unlikely to seek legal help to kick their addiction, even when they come to realize that they are indeed victims, because current laws make them criminals subject to prosecution and incarceration merely for being addicts...

and Dr. Steuss,

...Ultimately, if we stopped 100% from coming into the US illegally, it would likely have little to no impact on drug use overall. As you pointed out, it's feasible to manufacture here, and stopping it all from coming in does nothing to address the root causes of the problem.

But no, you did not address the question directly, except for this response where you assert the supply should be targeted without addressing how or why:

... We need to go after the fentanyl no matter who is smuggling it in and no matter who is pushing it...

As for my question, your response is naïve at best:

Marcus: Also, although I understand the emotions of cutting down the supply, will that help fight the epidemic most efficiently? If there are other ways to fight the epidemic, such as those focusing on the demand side, that are far less costly than immigration control of a very small percentage of the supply, would you consider those measures first?

We need to do both, and everything possible to fight the epidemic...

That's not a realistic or efficient answer, given limited resources. Why waste money doing inefficient things that only potentially effect 15% of the supply? Why not target the demand side? Do you have a response to that?

We need to control the border and what comes in, no matter who or what, not just fentanyl. And what is going out like guns and cash.

So, it's not just about fentanyl for you. That's been Gad's point all along.

[Gunnar]

Are you suggesting we make fentanyl legal, like alcohol?

Of course not! But let's recognize that nearly 99% of the Fentanyl Is Smuggled for U.S. Citizens By U.S. Citizens, Not Asylum Seekers.

Fentanyl overdoses tragically caused tens of thousands of preventable deaths last year. Many politicians who want to end U.S. asylum law claim that immigrants crossing the border illegally are responsible. An NPR-Ipsos poll last week found that 39 percent of Americans and 60 percent of Republicans believe, “Most of the fentanyl entering the U.S. is smuggled in by unauthorized migrants crossing the border illegally.” A more accurate summary is that fentanyl is overwhelmingly smuggled by U.S. citizens almost entirely for U.S. citizen consumers.

Here are facts:

Fentanyl smuggling is ultimately funded by U.S. consumers who pay for illicit opioids: nearly 99 percent of whom are U.S. citizens.

In 2021, U.S. citizens were 86.3 percent of convicted fentanyl drug traffickers—ten times greater than convictions of illegal immigrants for the same offense.

Over 90 percent of fentanyl seizures occur at legal crossing points or interior vehicle checkpoints, not on illegal migration routes, so U.S. citizens (who are subject to less scrutiny) when crossing legally are the best smugglers.

The location of smuggling makes sense because hard drugs at ports of entry are about 97 percent less likely to be stopped than are people crossing illegally between them.

Even if 100% of the illegal immigrants and asylum seekers were smuggling fentanyl across the border (which is very far from the case), fentanyl smuggled by illegal immigrants and asylum seekers would be an infinitesimally tiny part of the problem, because:

Just 0.02 percent of the people arrested by Border Patrol for crossing illegally possessed any fentanyl whatsoever.
The government exacerbated the problem by banning most legal cross border traffic in 2020 and 2021, accelerating a switch to fentanyl (the easiest-to-conceal drug).

During the travel restrictions, fentanyl seizures at ports quadrupled from fiscal year 2019 to 2021. Fentanyl went from a third of combined heroin and fentanyl seizures to over 90 percent.

Annual deaths from fentanyl nearly doubled from 2019 to 2021 after the government banned most travel (and asylum).

Also take the time and look at the success of prohibition, in regards to alcoholism, and heath in general, along with other things that go along with alcohol abuse. Since probation, have more people been murdered, or have more people died because of alcohol abuse, alcohol related accidents, murders and crimes induced by alcohol, and suicide because of it?

Will this do?

Changes in homicide and suicide rates during Prohibition in the US 1900-1950
Published by
Aaron O'Neill
, Aug 9, 2024
Once described by US President Herbert Hoover as "a great social and economic experiment", we now know that Prohibition was ultimately a failure, that led to increased crime and violence and gave way to a new era of mafia and mob influence in the United States. On January 17, 1920, the Volstead Act came into effect and the manufacturing, transportation, importation and sale of alcohol became federally prohibited across the United States, and while consumption was not a federal offence, it was sometimes prohibited on a state level. Opposition to Prohibition remained strong throughout the 1920s, and the Great Depression (starting in 1929) led many to advocate for the sale and taxation of alcoholic beverages in order to ease the US' economic woes. One of the reasons why Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected in 1932 was due to his promise of ending Prohibition, which he did with the Ratification of the 21st Amendment on December 5, 1933.

Also do a little reading on American cities where they legalized drugs like fentanyl....how are they doing?

But I am curious what you solution is to the epidemic?

I don't claim to know the complete solution to solving the fentanyl problem, but perhaps this could be a good start:

It is monstrous that tens of thousands of people are dying unnecessarily every year from fentanyl. But banning asylum and limiting travel backfired. Reducing deaths requires figuring out the cause, not jumping to blame a group that is not responsible. Instead of attacking immigrants, policymakers should focus on effective solutions that help people at risk of a fentanyl overdose.

[Physics Guy]

Another public service announcement: "opportunity cost".

Quite often, doing one thing will prevent you from doing something else. The first thing might directly exclude the other thing, the way turning left automatically means not turning right. More often, the first thing prevents you from doing the second thing just because the first thing uses up resources that you would need for the second thing. If you have enough resources you could do both, but if not, doing the first thing prevents you from doing the second.

Losing the chance of doing the second thing, when you do the first thing, is the opportunity cost of the first thing. If a burger costs five bucks and a small fries cost two, and you have six bucks, then the cost of the fries to you is not just two bucks: it's two bucks and getting no burger in this meal. The two bucks are the fries' direct cost, and missing out on the burger is their opportunity cost.

Opportunity costs are why it is dangerous to do something that will only help a bit with a problem, because we tell yourselves that at least it's a bit, and every little bit helps, and this problem is so bad that even a bit of help with it is great. We have limited resources, and if we waste them on measures that will only help a bit then we won't be able to do things that help more. We got the small order of fries, and we're a bit less hungry now, but now we can't get the burger. We should have skipped the fries.

[Gadianton]

LOl, that is a answer? To what? Your assertion was that by Trump deporting people he was violating their civil rights. You are moving the goal posts, clearly. You wrote " You're doubling down exactly as I've explained, Markk. If the last alarm bell wasn't loud enough, you sound the next alarm bell louder, all as a way to justify human rights violations" Present tense.

No Markk, I'm not moving the goal posts. Along with "begging the question" and "ad hominem", you don't know what that means either. You are moving the goal posts. The conversation, which you introduced on Dec. 14th, is the Trump plan for "mass deportations". Note that Jersey Girl's thread was literally titled "mass deportations":

My point, and in context with the OP, is that with Gaston being voted out and hopefully a rea commitment to a strong border and immigration policy they will start deporting and/or locking these folks up first. And get those that are known criminals and gang members out of here.

Changing the subject to, "how is it any different from Bill Clinton!?" is moving the goal posts.

I don't think I was old enough to vote when Clinton ran. I didn't vote for Obama either. I was highly against Obama's ICE projects, however, Obama made the news scraping databases and blindly arresting immigrants with arrest records. Trump is directly targeting working immigrants with no known connection to the Fentanyl problem (which was your original justification for deportations). Obama and Clinton didn't sign executive orders to prepare Guantanamo for illegals. If you look at your table, the vast majority of Clinton apprehensions exited on their own, they weren't physically removed or put in holding facilities while awaiting trial.

You cherry picked Trump's threats back in December, focusing on Fentanyl as the justification for deportations. Now you're backing away from your claim that his deportations have anything to do with fentanyl, and deportations are justified for -- whatever -- and everyone should allow Trump to be at least as bad as previous presidents. Now that it is clear Trump is targeting farmers and not criminals, you're moving the goals posts for the justification of his deportations. Fentanyl was just an excuse for you to justify your desire for blood, Markk. That's the problem with you as a person.

I think the bigger issue here than Ajax, Ceebo, and I, not reading your posts, not to mention mucking through the ad-hom's, is that you don't seem to remember what you write, it keeps changing Gad.

Lots of people don't read my posts for whatever reasons. I don't blame them. The problem with you and Ajax, is that you quote and respond to my posts as IF you had read them. To show you just how pathetic you are as a reader, you included Ceeboo (bolded) when I specifically said that unlike you and Ajax, Ceeboo probably does read my posts (when he responds to me).

Deportation generally speaking is not a human rights violation. Its an unfortunate reality that will happen and that often leads to human rights violations. Your Trump campaign has changed it from an unfortunate reality to a spectator sport where you cheer for blood. Was Hitler guilty of human rights violations as he was preparing his concentration camps for occupancy, or only after he successfully filled them? Maybe this will help: If the FBI discovers a detailed plot to execute the president, are the perpetrators guilty of anything even if they haven't carried out the plan yet?

You justify Trump the same way neo-Nazi's justify Hitler. On the one hand you freely celebrate how bad he's going to be, but then in the right context, you cherry pick and say things like, "He's just targeting drugs" when you know that's not true. And if backed into a corner, you turn to, "How was Hitler any different than...!" It will be interesting to see how you justify Guantanamo when you eventually are forced to face the topic. Unless millions of illegals feel like they have a fighting chance in the world and exit freely, the Trump deportations are shaping up to be unlike anything from Clinton or Obama or any other US president.

[Markk]

We discussed this at length on the other thread, you might want to read it and catch up.

You didn't answer or even address my question in the other thread. Others did, such as Gad,

...You're not going to vindicate Trump's mayhem-as-a-solution by pointing to how bad the drug problem is. I've watched plenty of right-wing exploit vids on YouTube about fentanyl and tranq. And yes, it is shocking. But none of this amounts to a bare argument for wasting billions more on deporting working families...

and Canpakes,

...I have said that it remains to be seen if Trump will do some good things. Stuff like killing the 14th Amendment and mass deportations do nothing to resolve the issues you’ve been harping about, like homelessness and fentanyl abuse, or drug use in general...

and Gunnar,

I don't think believe anything relating to fentanyl or other drug trafficking has anything to do with the constitutional right of birthright citizenship or that merely getting rid of that right will do anything to mitigate that problem. Nor do I believe that the stupid war on drugs and the punitive prohibition approach to drug addiction is a sane or effective way to mitigate the problem of widespread drug addiction and overdoses. The biggest beneficiaries of that approach are organized crime and drug traffickers, who know that once they once they can get vulnerable people addicted to their wares, their victims are unlikely to seek legal help to kick their addiction, even when they come to realize that they are indeed victims, because current laws make them criminals subject to prosecution and incarceration merely for being addicts...

and Dr. Steuss,

...Ultimately, if we stopped 100% from coming into the US illegally, it would likely have little to no impact on drug use overall. As you pointed out, it's feasible to manufacture here, and stopping it all from coming in does nothing to address the root causes of the problem.

But no, you did not address the question directly, except for this response where you assert the supply should be targeted without addressing how or why:

... We need to go after the fentanyl no matter who is smuggling it in and no matter who is pushing it...

As for my question, your response is naïve at best:

We need to do both, and everything possible to fight the epidemic...

That's not a realistic or efficient answer, given limited resources. Why waste money doing inefficient things that only potentially effect 15% of the supply? Why not target the demand side? Do you have a response to that?

We need to control the border and what comes in, no matter who or what, not just fentanyl. And what is going out like guns and cash.

So, it's not just about fentanyl for you. That's been Gad's point all along.

You are late in the conversation, and I get it is hard to get caught up in these types of back and forth's, especially when so many ad-hom's muck it up.

Given that, tell me what started the conversation about illegal immigrants vs border crossing with fentanyl, and what my position are based on what I wrote? I will then either agree, or set the context straight.

In regard to us discussing your assertion on the other thread.... start here by canpakes » Mon Feb 03, 2025 1:12 am

He used this as his baseline for his argument https://www.cato.org/blog/us-citizens-w ... une%202024


My position is that the border is lax (I discussed this in the other thread), and that there is trafficking of all types of things, including fentanyl. It matters not if cartels are using citizens as mules, or immigrants, it is the trafficking of a drug that is killing hundreds of thousands of dollars and costing tax payers well over a trillion dollars a year. What do you think the most trafficked thing is that comes across the border daily?

All this given, what is your position on the epidemic, and apart from that, illegal immigration as a whole. What are your solutions?

Thanks