All Evangelicals Are Not Alike

This article from Mother Jones suggests there is a difference of opinion  between Evangelicals when it comes to giving illegal immigrants a pathway to citizenship.  And to think there is a man from Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University that is joining this group.  This could become very interesting.  How will this play in the structure of the GOP?  Will these opposing Evangelicals bring more moderates back to the GOP or will the Radical Evangelicals still  flex their muscle and keep their control?

Indypendent

http://herjones.com/politics/2010/05/right-wing-clash-over-immigration-reform

Advertisements

80 Comments

Filed under Democratic Party, Diversity, Illegal immigration, Playing Politics, Political Reform, Radical Rightwing groups, Republicans

80 responses to “All Evangelicals Are Not Alike

  1. indypendent

    Didn’t Ronald Reagan offer amnesty to illegal immigrants during his presidency?

    I think the reason this issue has become such a hot button is because it is such a red-meat wedge issue to keep the Republicans fired up and ready to vote for each and every ‘R’ they see on the ballot.

    And, perhaps because now that the economy has been so crappy, alot of people are not working and seeing these illegals working just rubs salt into the wound?

    Or is it just downright racism – as some are claiming?

  2. Lots of reasons to be angry or disappointed — especially if you only look at what you want to see, only listen to what you want to hear.

    I am torn over the immigration issue. One day I see it this way and the very next day another way. I know it’s tough, it’s complicated, and there isn’t any single answer because it’s so entangled.

    The employers have to be held accountable! That would be one part of the issue. But even then until Americans quit being the biggest users of illicit and illegal drugs…

  3. prairie pond

    Fnord, I agree that the problem starts with those who hire and exploit undocumented workers.

    As for drugs, they wouldnt be illicit or illegal if congress or obama had any guts. Legalize them all. Tax them. Take the profit out. Control the quality.

    Look what happened to the mob when liquor became legal again.

    Legal drugs + employer crackdowns = some solutions if not the total end of the problems.

    • indypendent

      Our country has always been such a hypocrit when it comes to professing to be such a good Christian nation but yet we have done some downright despicable things all in the name of justice, democracy, God, the flag and Yankee Doodle Dandy eating mom’s applie pie.

      There is a reason why we are called the Ugly Americans in certain parts of the world.

      Our arrogance is abundant.

  4. itolduso

    Apparently, The administration cares little about stopping employers from hiring illegal aliens

    “The Justice Department is asking the Supreme Court to strike down a state immigration-enforcement law Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano signed as governor of Arizona.

    In a filing Friday afternoon, Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal asked the court to hear a challenge brought by employers and immigrant-rights groups to the employer-sanctions statute Napolitano signed in 2007.

    “Those provisions disrupt a careful balance that Congress struck nearly 25 years ago between two interests of the highest importance: ensuring that employers do not undermine enforcement of immigration laws by hiring unauthorized workers, while ensuring that employers not discriminate against racial and ethnic minorities legally in the country,” Katyal and other government attorneys wrote. “There is no reason to believe that Congress intended a result that would subvert the purpose and operation of its general prohibition on state sanctions.”

    http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshgerstein/0510/DOJ_Ariz_law_Napolitano_signed_is_illegal.html?showall

    • “Apparently, The administration cares little about stopping employers from hiring illegal aliens”

      It’s laughable to me that you could draw that conclusion from the link you posted and quoted. Little over the top as you enjoy pointing out to others.

      • itolduso

        why so? Seriously.

      • itolduso

        “The law allows states to control business “licensing and similar laws.” The Arizona law targets employers found to have hired illegals, and could empower state government to revoke the business licenses of repeat violators.”

      • Then business should follow the law, huh?

    • indypendent

      Do some research and see how many illegals the Obama Administration has deported. Look under Homeland Security. Also, look at the category that had the highest increase – the criminal illegal immigrants. You know, those people who are criminals and we really don’t want them here?

      To give Obama some credit, he is at least doing something about actually deporting illegals and not just out squawking about it.

      Bottom line, whether we like it or not, this country is controlled by corporations and Big Business does not want the exploitation of cheap labor to stop – so nobody is going to ever get rid of the illegals completely.

      I remember just a few short years ago when Republicans were defending businesses using this cheap labor because, after all, nobody wants to pay $10 for a hamburger.

      Why such the hot fervor now in Republican Land to deport all illegals? Could it be due to the fact this is a red-meat wedge issue that can be used to whip their followers into a frenzy and be sure to bring out the Republican voters?

      I suspect this issue will be used just like abortion and gay marriage with the GOP – they never want to solve the issue – they want to use them as their whipping boy at every election.

      And the Corporacy continues while both parties fight about illegal immigration.

      • itolduso

        I don’t defend the use of illegal aliens labor. Never have, and never will. The left has been clamoring for the punishment of BIG BUSINESS for hiring illegals. Arizona did something about it, the Obama administration wants to put a stop to it. So what is the problem?

      • prairie pond

        Please tell us what the arizona law did to stop businesses from hiring?

        I know what it did to suspend the unreasonable search and seizure laws. I dont recall ANYTHING in the new law directed at business hiring laws.

        enlighten us

      • prairie pond

        “I suspect this issue will be used just like abortion and gay marriage with the GOP”

        And dont forget guns.

        God, guns and gays. The repuke trifecta

  5. itolduso

    I understand Prairie Pond’s position regarding illegal drugs and the crime element. However, I am unsure that just legalizing them is a good idea. I think we have enough poisons that are legal, and not sure we need to offer more. As I recall a study I read several years ago, alcoholism went up after the repeal of prohibition. In addition, I am concerned about public safety. How can we determine what the “legal limit” is for driving or operating machinery while under the influence?
    Several drugs stay detectable in the system long after usage. I just don’t think it is a great idea.
    At the same time, I recognize that what we are doing now is not working and we need to try something else. What that something else is, I don’t know.

    • I’m in agreement. I also don’t have any ideas or solutions. I wouldn’t mind MJ being legalized and taxed… But when you move on to cocaine I get real conflicted. For some addictive personalities isn’t MJ a gateway drug? I do absolutely understand that we can’t control, not do I think we should attempt, what a person ingests. I would prefer a medical approach to a throw em in jail approach. Why do so many people need to self medicate? What are they wanting to mask, avoid, whatever the right descriptive words are?

      • prairie pond

        Sorry, fnord. That reply was meant for itoldyouso, not you.

        But to your points, I think coke, heroin, speed and such are very dangerous. But what we are doing now isnt stopping anything.

        Whatever is “gateway” to them now is still available, it’s just putting money into the law enforcement/prison complex.

        Could we PLEASE at least TRY something that might improve the situation? I dont know how to stop drug abuse either, but locking everyone up and giving law enforcement unlimited powers isnt stopping anything either.

        And for all the fiscal conservatives, think of all the money we’d save on prison beds!

      • indypendent

        I agree with your suggestion that we need a medical approach to solve the drug problem instead of just throwing them in jail.

        But that would take some serious money and the powers to be in our society would rather pay for the prison than pay for medical care.

        That medical approach would fall under health care and you don’t want to be threatening those Tea Baggers with any loss of their Medicare to go take care of some drug user, do you? Where is your sense of justice? You know there are certain people that don’t deserve medical care.

        heavy sarcasm

      • Yes, I’d heard that. (rolling eyes)

        How many of those on Medicare are abusers? Some?

        I’ve read studies of the costs of prisons and prisoners. Maybe the studies were slanted, but they showed some comparisons of costs to keep prisoners vs costs for treatment and showed savings for going the treatment route.

    • prairie pond

      Since what we are doing now is CLEARLY not working, why not try something different instead of wringing our hands?

      Legalize now. You cant stop DUI’s right now either. Using your logic, we should go back to prohibition.

      Why keep doing what is NOT working?

      Statists. Lets do the same things over and over and HOPE it works next time.

  6. indypendent

    As for safety issue, we have many current drug users now – our safety is at risk anyway.

    What I got from Prairie Pond’s suggestion is the fact if we legalize drugs, then the lure of fast money and profit will be gone. With the money issue off the table – there won’t be these violent drug turf wars going on (hopefully).

    But I’m sure the pharmaceutical companies would not want to legalize drugs – then where would they be with the sale of their legal drugs that are now the fastest growing drug addiction?

    The last thing pharmaceutical companies want is competition. Their current racket is pretty sweet.

    It’s about money, bottom line. And then throw in the so-called church crowd that sees nothing wrong with their church covering up for child molesting priests but want all marijuana users thrown into jail.

    Our country is full of hypocrisy and the church crowed is a big contributor towards that endeavor.

    It just does not make any sense.

    • itolduso

      Again, I understand Parair Pond’s position very well. And I think that your “what I got” is spot on.
      And I am not in very much disagreement about the effects on the criminal element.

      I don’t work for the Pharmaceutical companies, I don’t care about their position. Nor do I seriously care about whatever the “church” position is. And seriously, that would depend on which “church” you are talking about. Believe it or not, I can come to my own conclusions.

      You are right, there are drug addicts already driving and in the work place. And if found to be so, they are fired, restricted from driving, sometimes jailed, etc. Zero tolerance. So, if illegal, what is the legal limit? I don;t think it is an unfair question, I don’t think that has anything to do with the pharmaceuticals, I don’t think it has anything to do with the church.

      • I would guess there would need to be different measures for impaired. As you said, some drugs would leave traces after the impairment was gone. I think we already need new measures for what constitutes impaired because of the people who abuse legal drugs (pharmaceuticals vs alcohol) and are just as dangerous.

  7. prairie pond

    “But I’m sure the pharmaceutical companies would not want to legalize drugs – then where would they be with the sale of their legal drugs that are now the fastest growing drug addiction?

    The last thing pharmaceutical companies want is competition. Their current racket is pretty sweet.”

    BINGO, Indy!

    The real reason all drugs arent legal now. I doubt anyone not taking drugs now is abstaining because it’s illegal. If you want them, they are available. Everywhere. It’s just that now they are unregulated, and all the money goes to criminals.

    I think criminal big pharma is just jealous of the other criminals…

  8. indypendent

    . Arizona did something about it, the Obama administration wants to put a stop to it. So what is the problem?

    Oh, I must have missed the news coverage of Arizona rounding up all those employers of the illegals.

    My point was, and still is, that we already have laws that punish employers hiring illegals – and nobody has done anything about it.

    While you’re busy blaming Obama as the only person who is fighting the law to punish employers, the Obama Administration has been deporting illegals – of which I would think you would be interested in that fact.

    The illegal immigration issue will always be a red-meat wedge issue to be used as the whipping boy at election times.

    Don’t be blaming just the Obama Administration for something that no one else has the cajones to take on.

    • Freebird1971

      Here is my modest proposal

      Stiff jail time for the person responsible for hiring and a HEAVY fine on the business owners is the best place to start. Oh, and no shortened jail time,5 years with no time off for “good behavior”sounds fair to me. Base the fine on a percentage of the business profits.

      No plea bargains for the company or the person responsible for the hiring of the illegals

      I know there is no “perfect” solution but these are some of my thoughts.

  9. prairie pond

    Besides, how would law enforcement make their money if the “war”on drugs were over? By doing their jobs? Stopping white collar crime?

    heh. heheheheh. HEHEHEHE. HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH!

  10. itolduso

    “While you’re busy blaming Obama as the only person who is fighting the law to punish employers, the Obama Administration has been deporting illegals – of which I would think you would be interested in that fact”

    I am, and I am grateful he has done what he has done. Who said I wasn’t. Doesn’t take away from the fact that his administration is trying to stop Arizona law from penalizing employers who hire illegals

    • C’mon, we all know President Obama is using every avenue available to attack that Arizona law. He’s made no secret of it! We all also know we hold different opinions of that law. You are picking nits, attempting to trap, over emphasizing a tiny little thing that might get someone to argue. And, you might succeed. It won’t be me. I’m not into arguing.

    • indypendent

      Then I would ask as to why is his administration taking this action?

      Exactly which lobbyist got the winning bid?

      Is that what you’re trying to say?

      But let’s take this a step further – why not go after these Big Business Corporations that hire illegals?

      I heard of a website that claims to have a listing of some major corporations that knowingly hire illegals. I’ll try to find that website and put a link to it.

      It was something like ‘wehirealiens’ if you want to try to find it yourself.

      I think it is time for the American people to get involved and if it takes boycotting certain corporations to get our point across, then so be it.

      But when was the last time the majority of Americans did anything like a boycott? It just ain’t gonna happen. Some people just don’t care enough about the issues to even do research let alone actively boycott.

  11. itolduso

    “My point was, and still is, that we already have laws that punish employers hiring illegals – and nobody has done anything about it.”

    “Don’t be blaming just the Obama Administration for something that no one else has the cajones to take on.”

    Seems like my only problem was the fact that I said anything negative about Obama.

    • indypendent

      No, I have stated on this blog numerous times that I do not agree with Obama on everything – so let’s not try to make that boat float.

      I just wonder why you choose to only single out Obama as being the only one choosing to fight the law to penalize employers hiring illegals.

      Many presidents and elected officials choose to look the other way – why just blame Obama?

      • itolduso

        Yeah, I agree that far too many elected officials have chosen to look the other way. In this case, The Obama administration has joined a suit to stop Arizona from penalizing employers who hire illegal aliens. That is why Obama. Now, 671… has some legal points I am reevaluating my position with, but that is why just Obama. Just to answer your question.

  12. prairie pond

    No, itoldyouso, the problem is you are offering no solutions other than what we are doing now, which is CLEARLY not working.

    I probably dislike obama more than anyone else here, so dont pull that obama-lover stuff on me.

  13. prairie pond

    “his administration is trying to stop Arizona law from penalizing employers who hire illegals”

    I’m going to ask you again. What in the az law punishes those doing the hiring? It’s well known how it punishes those being hired.

    Give us examples of what you say is being done by az to stop the hiring.

  14. itolduso

    “I know what it did to suspend the unreasonable search and seizure laws. I dont recall ANYTHING in the new law directed at business hiring laws”

    It’s not the new law. It was a law signed by Napalitono in 2007.

    As to whether or not it had the desired effect, I don’t know. .

    ” You are picking nits, attempting to trap, over emphasizing a tiny little thing that might get someone to argue. ”

    What nit am I picking? This was a law enacted in 2007, authorizing the state to do exactly what many have wanted—punishing businesses hiring illegals, and the Obama administration wants it overturned.

    “Then business should follow the law, huh?”

    Of course they should. Why would I think any different?

  15. Without examining the entirety of the motion, petition, brief or whatever else the DOJ filed, the following occurs to me: the filing is directed at upholding federal law in the area of sanctions against employers as supreme over the 2007 Arizona law. This is the primary job of the Solicitor General, to take the side of the federal government in legal matters, in this case to argue that the Arizona statute in question is preempted by the federal law. To me, the Solicitor General carrying out one of the functions of the office is not a reflection (necessarily) of the Administration’s position on the matter.

    This is, after all, the duty of a lawyer, to represent the client whether or not the lawyer personally agrees with the client’s actions. Yes, the lawyer may decline to represent a client, or may resign, withdraw with the court’s permission, etc. But, so long as the lawyer is representing the client, the client comes first regardless of the lawyer’s personal position.

    • (I left this out from my prior post).

      If the Administration wants the federal law changed, because of disagreement with it, e.g., it may work with Congress therefor; but until the law is changed or is declared invalid by a court with jurisdiction, the Executive Branch has the responsibility (whether exercised or not) to enforce the same and to defend it from legal attack. The issue in this case appears to me to be whether the Arizona law is preempted by the federal law, a question that should be considered on its merits irrespective of the subject matter.

    • indypendent

      Thank you for bringing the legal aspect into this discussion.

    • itolduso

      I agree completely with the responsibility of the attorney. It is his or her responsibility to represent the client, whomever it is, and regardless of their personal position. However, in this case, the client is the administration. Which is my point.

      • No, the client is the federal government, of which the current administration is an agent. If the administration qua administration was the client, I might be inclined to agree; but it is not. The amorphous mass of the “federal government” is the client. This often puts the Solicitor General’s office in an uncomfortable position legally.

        Kinda like being a state Attorney General, say from Kansas in 1954 (or Delaware or….) arguing before SCOTUS about school segregation being Constitutional even though the office and members thereof don’t agree…

  16. itolduso

    “No, itoldyouso, the problem is you are offering no solutions other than what we are doing now, which is CLEARLY not working.”

    to which problem do you wish me to offer a solution. To illegal immingration? Here is my solution

    A. Deport them all (but, since that will not work)

    B.
    1. Allow 60 months for all those in this country illegally, no matter their point of origin, to register as some sort of “guest worker”
    2. During the next 6 months, all those registered will have criminial background checks done. Any body with more than three misdemenaors or on felony, immediately deported.
    3. After the background check is done, they are issued a new type of temporary resident, good for 5 years. Those found without such id, and unable to prove that they have been issued such, are deported
    4. After5 years, having kept out of legal trouble, becom permanent legal permanent residents, without citizenship. Sh9uld they desire citizenship, they may apply from their home countries, unless they can prove that their must be here as a sanctuary.
    5. Any children born in this country continue to be citizens at birth. Immediate family of such citizens given legal resident status.
    6. Any children brought into this country illegally will be given citizenship at the age of 18..

    • I think those points sound reasonable.

      I don’t think they will address all the complexities of the problems intermingled with illegal immigration.

      I don’t know the figures for those who reenter illegally after having been deported, but I know it’s a high number.

      • indypendent

        Didn’t someone cite an example of a border agent going through a bus and recognizing several illegals as the same people he had just escorted across the border the day before?

        I think this is common practice. But what really upsets me is these coyotes. These are the ones charging these illegals to cross the border. To stop the illegal crossing, we need to do something about those coyotes who prey on their victims and exploit to the tune of alot of money.

    • itolduso

      I should have added penalties for hiring those that cannot prove their “legal” status. That could include heavy fines, or jail time.

      • indypendent

        Fines? What is a fine when compared to the millions in profit these employers make when they are exploiting the cheap labor?

        Fining these employers would be like fining a multi-million dollar ball player $1,000 for something he did on the playing field. While $1,000 is alot of money to me – that same $1,000 is nothing to someone making several millions.

        Fines won’t do anything to solve this problem.

        And jail time? Again – where is the money going to come from to put them in jail or build new jails? No one wants to pay any taxes.

        State budgets are being cut to the bone and the prisons are already cutting their budgets. They simply won’t have any room for all these employers.

        And, to be truthful, I don’t think the average person really cares about these companies exploiting the cheap labor. So, again, where is the punishment going to come from?

      • The only practicable punishment is total forfeiture of the corporate (or other entity) assets. This will put pressure on from the shareholders to make sure their fractional interest in and to the net assets of the corporation upon dissolution (which, really, is all one acquires when purchasing stock) do not vanish due to bad deeds of the management. Make the liability for judgments obtained in shareholder actions against the officers, et al., nondischargeable in Bankruptcy.

        Otherwise, the pressure for increased profits and bigger dividends and higher per share stock values will always outweigh any other perceived risks.

    • indypendent

      I can agree with some of your suggestions but are they practical and realistic?

      Like making them apply from their home countries. Why would someone want to be here for 5 years as a guest worker and then be made to leave and go back to their home country simply to apply to the US where they have been working and contributing for the last 5 years?

      That makes no sense!

      And wouldn’t your #5 make #4 moot? This just encourages them to have children here – because then their babies would be anchor babies.

      We are still going to have the same problem!

      But the biggest problem of all – of which you have not addressed – are the current employers of these illegals. Where are their responsibilities in all this?

      The reason most of these employers knowingly hire illegals is because they are cheap labor and if the illegals complain about work conditions, they are out the door – so nobody complains!

      Hey, what a deal for Big Business. This set up is just like the good ol’ days of slavery – only the slave masters no longer have to board and feed their slaves – Big Business leaves that up to the US taxpayers.

  17. itolduso

    “Could we PLEASE at least TRY something that might improve the situation? I dont know how to stop drug abuse either, but locking everyone up and giving law enforcement unlimited powers isnt stopping anything either.”

    I am not arguing against that. In fact, I do not understand why someone, somewhere, has not challenged the laws that allow pd’s to just take someone’s stuff, on the suspicion of it mght have been gained by drug sales.

    I agree, we need something different. I have talked extensively with a few in this area. Their primary position is, we are not sure what will work. There is some good work going on that applies some mental health work along with punishment. Sentencing sometimes allow someone to dry out, and while doing so, we should do what we can for treatment. People think it is hard to quit smoking cigaretttes, they should try crack. Just because I don’t immediately buy into the “make it all legal” side, don’t try and pigeon hole me elsewhere. Back later

    • indypendent

      And where is the money going to come from to pay for this mental health and medical care?

      Republicans do not feel they have to pay taxes – so good luck on selling this to them.

    • prairie pond

      Ok, fine if you dont buy into the “make it all legal” strategy. I STILL hear you saying since you dont know what will be foolproof, we should keep doing what we are doing.

      No one knows what will work perfectly.

      We damn sure know that what we are doing now does NOT work. Why keep doing it? Why not at least TRY something new, even if it fails?

      It cant fail anymore badly than the status quo.

  18. indypendent

    I would like propose a solution to the many illegals crossing the border – let’s let Arizona and Texas secede from the US since they obviously feel they are far superior to the rest of us.

    And the illegals crossing into the US are primarily coming through the Arizona border – but let’s throw Texas in just for good measure – and to get rid of Rick Perry once and for all.

    After these two states secede, let’s build that fence and we’ll let whoever wants to join Arizona and Texas a free ride to their destination before we seal them up.

    Hey, this would get rid of 3 problems with 1 solution. We help solve the illegal immigration problem, we get rid of John McCain and his AZ Gang and Rick Perry and his TX Gang.

    Sounds like a win-win to me! LOL

  19. itolduso

    “Like making them apply from their home countries. Why would someone want to be here for 5 years as a guest worker and then be made to leave and go back to their home country simply to apply to the US where they have been working and contributing for the last 5 years”

    Only if they want to be citizens. If they want to remain legal residences, and qualify as such, they may maintain that status forever.

    “And wouldn’t your #5 make #4 moot? This just encourages them to have children here – because then their babies would be anchor babies”

    The Constitution gives these babies Citizenship. I am not about to ignore that, nor try and change it. Yes, it does give some incentive for pregnant women to come here and have babies. I see no solution for that.

    “Fines? What is a fine when compared to the millions in profit these employers make when they are exploiting the cheap labor?

    Fining these employers would be like fining a multi-million dollar ball player $1,000 for something he did on the playing field. While $1,000 is alot of money to me – that same $1,000 is nothing to someone making several millions.

    Fines won’t do anything to solve this problem.”

    It can if you make it large enough.

    “And jail time? Again – where is the money going to come from to put them in jail or build new jails? No one wants to pay any taxes.”

    You would only need to jail a few CEO’s, or at the least Human Resources Directors. The rest would fall in line pretty dang quick. ANd even if every ceo of every fortune 500 or even fortune 1000 business was found guilty, I am sure that there could be room found for 500 or 1000 extra prisoners. Pretty small increase in the millions we have in jail now.

    • indypendent

      And exactly how much is large enough?>

      6176 had it right when the punishment is forfeiture of the company’s assets and they cannot run for protection through bankruptcy.

      Now that is much better than a fine – that’s a punishment.

      The prisons are overloaded now and the budgets are being cut – so an extra 500 or 1000 prisoners is a big deal. Maybe not to you not being directly affected – but again – where will the money come from to put these extra prisoners in prison?

      We have an entire political party that feels they should have to pay NO taxes. That leaves who exactly to pay for those extra prisoners that you think is so minimal?

      • itolduso

        We have an entire political party that feels they should have to pay NO taxes.

        That statement is incorrect and a misrepresentation.

        “Maybe not to you not being directly affected –

        Where do you get that idea? The cost of drugs, and the war on drugs, is an unseen tax on the entire society,

        plus.

        I am directly affected. I pay thousands in taxes. And in state income taxes, and in state property taxes. There are ways to reduce the costs of drugs. Incarcaration is only a temporary solution. Medical help, mental help, even educational help should be used.

        And I am a registered Republican.

  20. itolduso

    “Ok, fine if you dont buy into the “make it all legal” strategy. I STILL hear you saying since you dont know what will be foolproof, we should keep doing what we are doing.”

    “I agree, we need something different. I have talked extensively with a few in this area. Their primary position is, we are not sure what will work. There is some good work going on that applies some mental health work along with punishment. Sentencing sometimes allow someone to dry out, and while doing so, we should do what we can for treatment”

    Making it legal doesn’t do anything for the dreug dependent, other than keeping them out of jail. It doesn;t help on iota with their dependence. Let me relate the point of one story from a nationally recognized leader (which unfortunately I have forgotten the name of) with whom I had an occassion to listen to a lecture from, and then opportunity to speak directly too. His position also is that what we are doing is not working. His position is certainly punishment, or better wording (his idea) is short term removal from society with medical and mental health work.
    A few years a movie came out about drug abuse. I think it was “BLOW?” . Anyway, against his advice, a few of his patients went and saw the movie. It was enough to trigger flashbacks to the “beautiful agony” of their addiction, and they relapsed. Just from seeing a movie. Jail time will not necessarily help those people. It may help the first time or short timer, but many of these drugs are so potent, so desirous in their effect, that they will risk everything. Everything. To get that feeling. That means jail, that means job, that means family, that next fix means ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING!. We need medical treatment, we need mental health treatment, etc. for these folks. But it cannot be open ended. There must be consequences. It helps them. ” That is his story and opinion. And I agree.

    WHY DO I AGREE ? Had family members that have been there. Alcohlism, prescription drug abuse, etc. Not so much illegal drug dependence.
    I don’t buy into legalization of some of these most desperate drugs. But I don’t think jail, or just jail, is the answer. We need for this man’s viewpoints to become more widespread. That just doesn’t include talking points or finger pointing. It includes those as well as educating. People as well as politics. Just because it isn;t easy doesn;t mean we just throw up our hands and point figures at the other side.

    Specifically, what points of mine do you disagree with?

  21. itolduso

    His opinion is also possibly relocation. Does no good to dry out, and go back to the same old neighborhood.

    • Freebird1971

      From my own experience geographical cures do not work,be it across town or across the country.

      • itolduso

        May possibly be true. I think it CAN help, but not necessarily true in all circumstances. For instance, I have seen it true that if both spouses quit nicotine, it is easier than if one quits, and the other does not. Being in the environment makes it more difficult to quit, it seems to me. Also, if during the transition period, you change other things, like going to a bar, it seems to help. Anything to change your environment helps, at least a little. WIth the hard drugs, I am not sure. It might be worth a try.

      • 6176746f6c6c65

        I agree, Freebird; geographical relocation doesn’t work. Now, if relocation includes but is not limited to geographical, vocational, psychological, and social, there might be a chance. Just physically moving from point A to point B doesn’t.

  22. itolduso

    6176746f6c6c65

    I understand your argument. I can only say that if a company is chartered, or licensed, or incorporated under state law, it is my belief that the state may impose such as it may seem fit as a requirement to continued usage of that charter, license, or incorporation. While not an expert by any means, Corporations are incorporated under the laws of states (in this country) not the federal government, though I understand that there are federal laws (UCC For instance) that come into play.

    • indypendent

      And what state has ever told any big corporation what they can and cannot do? We have seen states and cities all compete to get some big corporation to come and set up business.

      How many times has the state of Kansas and/or the city of Wichita given millions to Boeing/Spirit to keep them here just to watch the corporation outsource many of their jobs overseas?

      But yet I’ve never heard of any corporation giving any of that taxpayer money back when they don’t hold up their end of the bargain.

      So, if you think any state is going to come down on some corporation for hiring illegals, I pray you’re right but I won’t be holding my breath.

      • itolduso

        Ummm. Apparently Arizona is trying, what is the problem with that? So what is your answer? Amnesty and citizenship for all? And the Millions that come after that? How many and for how long?

    • 6176746f6c6c65

      I am aware of what you are saying about state chartering. To me, the legal issue involved is whether this apparent “loophole” in the federal law of some 25 years ago may be used to circumvent the said law by a State otherwise proscribed from dealing with employment of illegal aliens. That is how I interpret the Solicitor General’s filing.

      The UCC, by the way, is not a federal law, but a “uniform law” which has been adopted (either the 1962 or 1972 version) by the several states with modifications to meet the peculiar needs of each state. Not trying to be a smart a**, just trying to inform. 🙂 There are federal laws which apply to corporations doing business in the several states; an example is the Magnunson-Moss Act (dealing with warranties in commercial consumer transactions).

      As to federally chartered corporations, may I suggest you consider banks which have names ending in “N.A” (national association) as a potential exception to your thoughts concerning artificial business entities.

      • itolduso

        Thanks for the enlightenment. As I said, I am not an expert. Yeah, I should not have said the UCC. On that one, I knew better. It was the first thing that came to mind, and it was wrong. I cannot think of what I was trying to say….A sad state, showing my poorly advancing in age. :0. I didn;t know about the N.A. Thing, I will have to look that up. It is Interesting to me. Should such matters ever cease to be interesting, I will know that the advancement of old age has passed the point to which I wish to continue anything but sitting on a bank with a fishing line, or rocking on the front porch. And at that point, not sure I will care about much.
        Anyway, thanks

  23. indypendent

    I agre 6176 and freebird. Simply moving from point A to point B has not and will not work.

    But on the other hand, let’s look at this from another perspective.

    If a stereotypical drug user does happen to be able to move to a better neighborhood, what will that person live on? Do they have job skills that will get them a living wage job? Do they have the services of transportation getting them to their job.

    And what jobs will be available to this person – since we have so many employers who want to exploit cheap labor, the wages are being depressed all around. And with the high unemployment rates – again, the remaining employers know they can offer the lowest wages and still get a warm body in their to do whatever their job is.

    Exactly, what are the chances of this drug user to succeed – even in a new neighborhood.

    And we will STILL have the old neighborhood where that drug user came from to deal with. And for each drug user that escapes the old environment, how many are left in the old neighborhood?

    It’s a vicious cycle.

    But if our country can spend billions on a war-for-profit, huge profits for military contractors, huges profits for corporations that get government subsidies, then I think we should be able to afford to pay for the needs of our own citizens so they can become productive citizens.

    It’s a matter of priorities – in my opinion.

  24. Freebird1971

    itolduso,
    True that changing you environment may help,but unless you incorporate that with a whole new way of living and thinking your chances are pretty slim. If you practice a new way of living and thinking a geographical move is not necessarry. You can’t run from yourself

  25. itolduso

    Freebird1971.

    I agree to a point. But I also believe that staying in the same environment also reduces the chance of success. The expert I spoke about earlier also believes it MAY help, not necessarily WILL.

    • Freebird1971

      The only proof I have is my own experience and a room full of people that I meet with daily,and 75 years of history. Guess will will have to agree to disagree with each other.

      • itolduso

        Don;t get me wrong, I am not knocking your experience, or the 75 years of history at all. I understand your position, though I don;t know, and don;t need to know, your specifics. I thank you for your input. It is an opion of another person’s experience that I can draw from. I am not saying it is THE answer, but I think it can help. That opinion comes from personal observations, and talking with more than one expert, who have conflicting opinions, and with a small minority of gang members, who had to move to help keep their newly found ways. That’s all.

    • indypendent

      Everyone is agreeing with you that getting out of the old environment is good but it takes more than just changing your address.

      Do you really think that drug users are only found in bad neighborhoods?

      I have worked in the health care system for many years and you would be amazed at how many professionals are drug users. You may not recognize them at first – they usually wear white.

  26. itolduso

    “Do you really think that drug users are only found in bad neighborhoods?”

    Nope I do not. They come in all sizes, shapes, colors, ages, sexes, and professions. I have to deal with street addicts as well as professionals.

  27. itolduso

    That should have read “I have had to deal with”

    I seldom see a street addict any more.

  28. WSClark

    The problem with legalizing narcotic drugs such as cocaine, heroin and meth is that they present a clear danger even when used “correctly.”

    Len Bias and Don Rogers (athletes) died when using cocaine for the first time. Meth is nearly a first use addictive drug, and it is a nearly impossible to treat addiction. Heroin, provided the dosage is correct, is actually the safest of the three, since most overdoses are due to a purer than recognized mix.

    Even regular users of cocaine are subject to sudden cardiac arrest using coke. Andy Gibb and John Entwhistle (the Who) are two examples.

    No one has or can overdose on marijuana, nor is it addictive and so it should be legal, but the others are clearly dangerous.

    Cocaine, heroin and meth should be decriminalized so that users are not jailed, but dealers/makers are severely punished.

    As with any problem, dealing with the symptom and ignoring the root problem is a recipe for failure.

    • indypendent

      I can agree with you on that users are not jailed but dealers/makers are severely punished.

      But if drugs are legalized and controlled, would we have the black market we have today? I think that is where alot of this violence is coming from – the black market.