BORDER FENCE & DRUGS

Thursday?

Even though we all have differences on this issue, I have no doubt that the "fence" will reduce the drugs, crime coming into this country that kills between 20 and 50 thousand people per year (not all of this is from Mexico though -- only around 60 percent of the "big" ones -- see prior posts).

How many lives saved from reduced drug use will make this fence "tolerable" to those that oppose it for differing reasons? One? Ten? Three thousand? Is a 30 percent reduction (of the 60 percent) enough?

The mere "act of construction" will probably save lives and reduce the drugs coming into the country. It will certainly increase the cost of these drugs on the street, right?

Not attacking our drug problem at the border makes me wonder about the influence of big business, but I guess we all take positions on this issue that we see as benefiting our families, our country, or our kids? In this manner we all tend to be a little self-serving.

For me the drug issue is devastating for so many (including "some" that are close to me) that I don't understand why this issue gets ignored by the media. This will continue to be my issue, and I will continue to hope for the reduction of the amounts of drugs that continue to flow into this country from Mexico, which includes just naming a few:

66 percent of the cocaine (from Colombia, etc.) WOW!!!

60 plus percent of the "meth" WOW!!!!


Nationwide, there are around 20,000 direct deaths from the use of all illegal drugs. [I think this number is much closer to 40,000, but this is not the reported Census number.] This number more than doubles when you look at the indirect deaths, such as cocaine & meth babies, drug related killings, etc. See prior posts.

If you consider the age of those that die, including all of the drug babies, and attempt to calculate some type of years of life lost, these deaths are truly costly. So why do we send armies to Colombia, or agents to Mexico? It seems that it would make more reason to either create an environment in which the cost of these drugs materially increases through increased transportation costs via a fence, or in which the actual supply is reduced via a fence. In either case, this "border" option seems necessary as the drugs are being physically transported over the border now with little concern; and this option is one of the least expensive (around $1 to 4 billion initially). The crime rate in San Diego (Metro) has decreased 54 percent since San Diego's fence went up.

If we reduce the drugs used in this country by 18 percent (by reducing the drugs making it into the USA from Mexico by 30 percent), then we might just save lives. Maybe 4,000 lives? Maybe as much as 8,000 indirect lives. Maybe the number will only be 1,000 lives saved. Good enough? Would the fence be okay if you knew it would save your own child? How about if you knew it would save a child you didn't know?