JO>I've read that too. I also saw the statistics for the DARE programs.
JO>More kids in schools with the DARE programs use drugs than at the
JO>schools without it. Well, it figures...afterall, sex education has
JO>worked so "well" in schools...both subjects should be up to the
JO>parents, if you ask me.
 
      Here we are in complete agreement.  Schools were once a place
where children were taught to read, to write, and to cipher.  They were
taught history, languages, the arts, and given knowledge to go out into
the world and be productive citizens.  Today, more and more, schools
are leaving behind this role and assuming the role of teaching a new
morality that embraces the values the schools seek to impose upon our
children.  
      
JO>As hard as it is to believe, I agree with you. Some people WILL do
JO>whatever it takes (that 3.4%) to get drugs. And I don't have a
JO>problem with learning from that history...as long as we don't call
JO>it a "disease" but a choice, and we don't ever let it be an excuse
JO>for any form of bad behavior. Personally, I don't really care if a
JO>guy (adult, anyway) gets high in his living room...I do feel bad for
JO>his ultimate fate, but it's not for me to break down his door and
JO>decide for him. But if he decides to drive that way or commit crimes
JO>to support his habit, then it should be open season on him. The
JO>Heinlein rule should apply: "Your right to punch me ends just short
JO>of my nose." And none of this namby pamby "War" on this and "War" on
JO>that, the Clintons love so much. It's a joke...and a bad one.
 
       And also a costly one beyond belief, not only in a financial
sense, but in both the sacrifice of our liberties and in the collapse
of the moral foundations of our society.
JO>An example of what's happened with the huge flow of drugs is all the
JO>kids od'ing on heroin here in Plano. I don't know what the answer
JO>is. The school system is better than most here, so education didn't
JO>stop them. It's a well-to-do town (both parents usually work at very
JO>good jobs), so ultimately the kids probably have too much money, too
JO>much time to kill, and not enough parental guidance. 
 
     I have been an advocate of a free market for my entire adult life
and as such I have had to defend market ecconomics against an array of
people who believe, in varying degrees, that government interference
in the marketplace achieves some benifit.   As a result, I have spent a
good deal of time developing a clear understanding of how markets work
and the cause/effect relationship of interference in a market.
     The situation you are describing in Plano is a direct product of
distortions created by government intervention into the marketplace and
the effects of that intervention on supply and demand.  As unappealing
as the prospect may be, there is an everpresent demand for drugs in our
society and as long as that demand exists, supply will exist.  This is
an irrefuatable cornerstone of market ecconomics.    By government
intervening and attempting to thwart supply, something that is
impossible to accomplish, government only increases the cost of that
supply, and with it the profitibility of providing it, increasing the
incentive to provide supply.  With increased profitibility comes the
equally negative incentive to expand demand and expand the market
leading to promotion of an ever wider distribution of the product than
before the intervention.
     This all, of course, would be the case in a normal market, but an
even worse characteristic of the drug market is that it is not subject
to the price sensitivity of a normal moraket.  Noramally, rising prices
would reduce demand, but in this market the consumers are captive and
therefore immune to the price sensitivity of normal markets.  When
prices increase in this market demand stays high and the captive
consumers are compelled, by their own addictions, to do whatever is
necessary to aquire the capital necessary to pay the artifically
stimulated higher prices.  As a result, with each tighteningof
enforcement, we have a potential increase in prices, and with each
increase in prices we see an incentive to expand distribution because
of the higher profits, and with high profits we see increases in
supply, and since costs have increased to users, we see increases in
crime to support the higher costs.
      It;s a deadly, costly, socially destructive, and endless cycle
that cannot be broken by market distortion.
JO>I would never agree to an open border policy. We've already let too
JO>many people in that weren't checked out, and we do not need someone
JO>else's problems. I think our policy used to be if the person had
JO>something to offer, a trade, a skill, something...and I don't mean
JO>new ways to scam welfare or commit theft. Maybe it isn't fair, but
JO>life isn't fair, and if we let everyone live here, then what happens
JO>to us? We ALL suffer. It's just more socialism--misery for ALL.
 
     An open border policy, and when I say open I mean open with normal
checkpoints to screen immigrants for medical or other problems that
would be an immediate threat to others, must be contingent upon other
social changes that would permit market forces to regulate immigration.
Among these wouldbe an end to all government financed social programs,
a free market educational system, and a consumption based tax system
that would automatically include all who are here.  
     Once the incentive to come and take advantage of social programs
is removed, those arriving would have to come looking for work and an
opportunity to build a better life.  As such, they could only
contribute to a better society for us all working to build a
better nation.  Immigration restrictions only serve to perpetuate and
insulate the social programs of the left from oversaturation.  Once the
programs are dismantled, the immigration restrictions once demanded and
installed by the left can also be removed.
JO>I'm not against free trade, and I think we could manage it without
JO>opening the borders and becoming Texico. I've *been* to Mexico, it's
JO>not that nice to visit and I sure don't want to live there. NAFTA is
JO>just a bad agreement altogether. 
 
      It is bad, but it's better than what predated it.  Texas is not
Mexico and an open border policy would not make us Mexico.  Our
ecconomic, political, and social views are entirely different fromt
hose of Mexico.  We are a people who believe the business of Texas is
business, while the people of Mexico believe the business of Mexico is
none of their business.
      If we eliminate the social programs that Washington has imposed
upon us, turn our schools over to the private sector, and remain strong
in our opposition to an income based tax here, we have nothing to fear
from new immigrants.  If they come, they work.  If they work, they
expand markets and expand opportunities for all.  We can compete, head
to head, with any peoples anywhere in the world and if we can remove
the ball and chain of hidden federal taxes from our exports by adopting
a federal consumption based tax like we have here, and eliminate the
federal income based tax system, then our goods will become far more
attractive around the world and imported goods will be taxed at the
same rate as our own here lessening the attractiveness of imports.
       I don;t fear either open borders or free trade.  In fact, I
encourage both.
JO>And as I was saying about the roads. I know a lot of truck drivers,
JO>they have to jump through all kinds of hoop$ and pay even more fee$,
JO>part of which is supposed to help pay for roads. So it sickens me
JO>when I see these rattletrap trucks come from over the border that
JO>aren't paying license$ and fee$ like the people here, but it's all in
JO>the interest of "free trade", right? Dallas is always being
JO>threatened by sanctions because our air "isn't pure enough"...if they
JO>would quit lowering the acceptable standards, it would help, and it
JO>certainly doesn't help if anyone can come here from Mexico with a
JO>truck that wouldn't have passed emmissions 20 years ago! I pay a lot
JO>of taxe$ and fees every year to have a fairly new car te$ted...okay,
JO>I use the roads...but what about the ones that really tear up the
JO>roads and dirty the air? Heck, those are Owlgore's BUDDIES! They
JO>helped him become VP, so I guess it's "worth" it. Hogwash!
 
     Hey, my own position is to convert major highways and freeways to
privately operated toll roads.  Do this and the problem disappears.
Let the market work...it'll do a better job.
JO> Yep, we get sheered enough as it is. Although I always figured
JO> our state animal was the longhorn steer...even if sometimes it
JO> seems a bit light on the longhorn and heavy on the steer part
JO> ...kinda leaves us short on defense and/or testosterone. (sigh)
MA> I always tended to prefer the armadillo meself...
JO>Too dany hard to peel!
 
      Just look at them as a desert crab.  Tough to peel, but darn good
barbequed... Then again, what ain't? 
 
                                           /\/\ike
--- RBBSMail/386 v0.997
---------------