Talk about "evading the question..."
CNSNews.com pointed out to the speaker at her weekly press briefing that a recent Justice Department report indicated that one in five U.S. teenagers used drugs last year, and then asked: “Are you committed to sealing the border against the influx of illegal drugs from Mexico and, if so, do you have a target date in mind for getting that done?”
“Well if your question is about drugs, I’m for reducing demand in the United States,” said Pelosi. “That is what our responsibility is on this subject.
Oh, there's more.
“Incarceration is the next cheapest,” Pelosi continued. “It costs seven times more to incarcerate than to have treatment on demand. It costs 15 times more to interdict at the border. And it costs 25 times more with eradication of the cocoa leaf.
The question was whether the Speaker-Ette is in favor of significantly reducing drug-traffic through the southern border, remember?
Could have been about the "other-than-Mexican" terrorist-wannabees coming through there, too; s'pose QueenNancy of the Gulfstream-5 would have yapped about the cost of rebuilding the Twin Towers?
Or the Sears Tower?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
“Are you committed to sealing the border against the influx of illegal drugs from Mexico?"
Um, that's been US policy for about the past 50 years, hasn't it? How's that working out?
I’m for reducing demand in the United States
Many if not most experts agree that this would be the most effective way to reduce drug traffic. As long as there is a demand, there is profit motive, and as long as there is profit motive, there will be a way to get it to the customer.
I believe speaker Pelosi answered a carefully-worded politically-charged question quite well. The question was a political "trap". If she says "Yes", then she appears to subscribe to a 50 year failure of policy and if she says "No", then she appears to not care about the illegal drug traffic.
Instead, she avoided the trap and showed that she knows the subject and understands the complexities of the problem.
Brava!
Um, that's been US policy for about the past 50 years, hasn't it?
No.
Or, to distinguish: it may have been policy, but there has NEVER been an effort to implement said policy.
If you care to sever 'implementation' from 'policy,' then your observation is correct.
And you live in an alternative universe.
but there has NEVER been an effort to implement said policy.
Tell that to the DEA.
Post a Comment