By A-Row on 07:48:18 01/12/19
[In reply to "Yes and most of it is coming thru US ports, not the southern border! If you don't want to die from Fentanyl, JUST SAY NO *" by Georgia Buckeye, posted at 07:21:03 01/12/19]
...kind of like crop dusting. That has the potential to kill thousands and sicken 10X that. Also, although soluability is an issue, 1 kilo released into an urban water source could kill tens of thousands and sicken hundreds of thousands.
Not an issue because MOST of it is intercepted at ports of entry, right?? Let's ignore the 10% (conservative estimate there) that comes through the unprotected southern border. That realistically could ONLY kill thousands and thousands. Not to mention the number of people sickened by exposure. Not an issue, right??
Let's examine where non-weaponized fentanyl is being used currently. I would estimate that 95% is being mixed with heroin and other opioids to make them stronger. There is a market for fentanyl because of the market for opioids. Even if only 40% of the opioids are coming across the unprotected border then a physical barrier could potentially kill up to 40% of the product coming into the country. When that happens, the demand for fentanyl would decrease as well.
That's just the drug aspect of border security. I'm not even mentioning the human trafficking aspect. Unprotected borders and a government that hands out benefits to those who cross leads to masses of motivated people taking advantage. If there is a physical barrier to prevent it the incentive decreases by orders of magnitude and the trafficking/humanitarian crisis decreases as well.
Care to explain why Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi and others were talking about border security as recently as 2015 and now that there is someone who is actually trying to do something other than talk about it, they are so adamantly opposed to it?