The death penalty costs 60% more. Was she a criminal lawyer?

Um, I had it. See?

And when you take into account court costs for appeals, trials, yadda yadda yadda, Starmaker is right. Costs more to kill someone.

That's not my take on an opinion to this matter, you won't get one of those from me on this subject.

I'm just here to be a smart ass. :P

Great idea.

Hmmm a quick check and it seems this is from the 11th or so, explains why it wasn't on the Drudge Report.

But this is for drug dealers and those bringing drugs into the country, not the end user (and how much qualifies you as a drug dealer? You'd have to see).

As for if it means anything, don't know. Trump says a lot of things, it's what he actually does that matters. Still the threat of execution may slow down some of the drugs.

Although removing the UN's war on drugs and decriminalizing it would go quite a bit further than a death penalty.

That's quite moderate for Trump's standards. I'd have expected him to argue in favour of extrajudicial death squads who kill suspected dealers without trial, like in the Philippines under Duterte.
I'm more worried about his foreign policy though.

Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal, dewd....

Gotta love the reduction to economy. So telling of a mentality.

Killing everybody would be the cheaper solution to a lot of stuff, actually.

Trump has developed the fine art of missing the point, in everything. Thought complexity of a first grader. Maybe.
Come on, arrest or kill a dealer. Three will take their place.
Ban videogames and arm teachers so they can put down their students like cattle, do not DARE to ban weapon for civilians. MY EMENDAMENT!
The imbecile does not even think that rivers start from mountains, not from the sea.

Crime bosses have opinions, too. In their thinking, killing for profit, slavery, threats, beatings and so on are perfectly fine.
But everyone is entitled to their opinion, right? (This was an hyperbole obviously meant to say that not all opinions deserve respect or worse, tutelage)

Based Trump.

I know I'm going to regret asking, but huh? :P

The worst thing about the death penalty isn't even the cost but the unaccounted-for negative externalities. Committing crimes carries a heightened risk of death; if the state is also likely to sentence you to death, there's never an incentive to peacefully surrender, and no risk to get caught is too small. A meth dealer is in constant danger from their customers, competitors, the local mafia, the local mafia's competitors, other criminals for whom they present a high-value target, civilians and cops. If the death penalty is a possibility, there's nothing they wouldn't do to not get caught. But if it isn't, giving up, making a deal and getting out in 10 years and help your kid through college with your meth money is more enticing than rotting in a landfill.

The same goes for other crimes. So you've broken into a house and the owner is there and he's got a gun.
Option 1: kill him, kill his wife and two kids, set fire to the house, kill their toddler, cat, and a retiree in a neighboring house (which has caught fire) via smoke inhalation, catch an uber, kill the driver.
Option 2: shoot him, then run the fuck away.

^
Starmaker makes a good point. Besides, Cesare Beccaria arrived at the same conclusions in 1764 with his worldwide influential work, so it is not exactly news. Bigots will be bigots, I guess.