Let's just imagine what would happen to Texas if they were to secede.

I'm guessing that the US Pentagon wouldn't exactly entertain the notion of their military hardware and soldiers on Texas soil, and that they would try to get it back. Assuming that's successful, it would leave Texas unarmed and naked to the world. Sure, the populace may be packing heat, but the drug cartels wreaking havoc south of the border have bigger, more explosive heat. Once they move in, the "Nation" of Texas would deteriorate like so many South American nations ruined by drug trade. No doubt, some leftist Hugo Chavez-esque dictator would fill the power vacuum, and provide free health care and birth control, and subsidized education to the masses. Teen pregnancy drops, average household incomes rise.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with this scenario. Cut 'em loose!

I thought the race war stuff was pretty nutty, but a BBC article I read reported that the drug cartels in Mexico are so heavily armed that they could probably overthrow the Mexican government if they wanted to.

The old money, the big money, the trans-national corporations.

In reply to this comment by jpg1023:
In reply to this comment by rougy:
>> ^Lolthien:
What kind of world do we live in where that WON'T happen?


It's happening anyway.

Given that we have honest, compassionate people watching over things--and in America, that's never going to happen--legalization would give us the control instead of leaving it to the syndicates and, yes, the banks and other "legal" institutions who thrive on the profits of illegal drugs.

The CIA and other dirtbags make a lot of money off heroin, and they use it as a weapon, too.

Nothing is going to change because as with the Democrats and the Republicans, the difference between the DEA and the drug cartels is just an illusion, a front for the people who are really in charge.

Enlighten me, who are the people really in charge?

>> ^Lolthien:
What kind of world do we live in where that WON'T happen?


It's happening anyway.

Given that we have honest, compassionate people watching over things--and in America, that's never going to happen--legalization would give us the control instead of leaving it to the syndicates and, yes, the banks and other "legal" institutions who thrive on the profits of illegal drugs.

The CIA and other dirtbags make a lot of money off heroin, and they use it as a weapon, too.

Nothing is going to change because as with the Democrats and the Republicans, the difference between the DEA and the drug cartels is just an illusion, a front for the people who are really in charge.

>> ^Psychologic:
I doubt legalization would have a noticeable effect on the economy. The reason a lot of people buy weed is because they're too scared to grow it themselves due to its highly-detectable nature. If people decide to grow their own then it wouldn't do much to increase tax revenue. It would help state prison budgets, but not enough to help the economy significantly. Enforcement money would still be spent, but it would be directed at other drugs like meth.
It should still be legalized though. Besides our complete inability to control it in the first place, the only people it hurts are willing participants. People already use marijuana despite its illicit nature, so legalization would have the benefit of redirecting a large portion of any money involved to legitimate organizations.
The desire to use weed isn't going away, and as long as supplying it is profitable there will always be underground organizations willing to supply it. You could get rid of every mexican drug cartel that exists today and they would be replaced within a month... there is simply too much incentive for people to get rich supplying something that so many people want but are too scared to grow themselves.


Well put, Psychologic.

I might add that even if economic benefit to the economy is modest, I think that there will still be positive impact.

Just think of how many more people could be working and producing actual goods in the economy if the prisons were emptied of non-violent, marijuana-related offenders. The government savings from food and housing costs once eligible prisoners are released would be in the millions of dollars. The labour provided by the ex-cons would only add to that benefit.

I doubt legalization would have a noticeable effect on the economy. The reason a lot of people buy weed is because they're too scared to grow it themselves due to its highly-detectable nature. If people decide to grow their own then it wouldn't do much to increase tax revenue. It would help state prison budgets, but not enough to help the economy significantly. Enforcement money would still be spent, but it would be directed at other drugs like meth.

It should still be legalized though. Besides our complete inability to control it in the first place, the only people it hurts are willing participants. People already use marijuana despite its illicit nature, so legalization would have the benefit of redirecting a large portion of any money involved to legitimate organizations.

The desire to use weed isn't going away, and as long as supplying it is profitable there will always be underground organizations willing to supply it. You could get rid of every mexican drug cartel that exists today and they would be replaced within a month... there is simply too much incentive for people to get rich supplying something that so many people want but are too scared to grow themselves.

>> ^Memorare:
The biggest benefit of legalization would be the immediate evaporation of the murderous drug cartels.

I wish this were true, but they'd have to legalize ALL illicit drugs, and that's very unlikely. Legalizing marijuana would definitely take a chunk out of the problem, though.

The biggest benefit of legalization would be the immediate evaporation of the murderous drug cartels. Smuggling is profitable because the product is illegal.

A side note on the Golden Rule you mentioned: It has its origins in Matthew 7:12 which refers back to the 6th through the 10th commandments given by Moses in the Pentateuch. The Golden Rule is merely a summary of the way we ought to interact with fellow man. (It does not address how we ought to act within our own minds or with our Creator.) Rather than 'some' morals deriving from the Golden Rule, the Golden Rule is derived from 'some' morals.

You're correct that Marijuana use doesn't directly injure anyone else (though everything indirectly affects others around us). Just like smoking cigarettes or over-eating. Yet, Marijuana use harms the user far less than either of those two. But one truly has to understand what the very purpose of his existence is in order to understand that Marijuana use is contrary to those purposes.

The big problem I have with this whole "this should be illegal, this shouldn't be illegal" stuff is that I do not see a disparity between the moral code and legal/lawful code. If something can be demonstrated to be immoral using Foundational Law, it is irrelevant if the current governmental powers recognize it as such, in determining it's immorality. The question then is, in structuring our governments to abide by and recognize Foundational Law, should those governments have corporeal punishments for violations of that Law. Each law is different, and carries different punishments. For the case of Marijuana use, I would argue that there is no punishment at all that can be carried out by what most people call the US GOVERNMENT that would be fitting to the 'crime' so committed. That is to say, in common parlance, MARIJUANA SHOULD BE LEGALIZED. And I think that NO ONE should smoke it! If (and when) they do, they have their own reward and punishment in the same instant and they will be ostracized by their own families to the extent of their misbehavior.

I think cigarettes are just fine. Crudely speaking, they kill those stupid enough to use them. The crime isn't in the cigarette. The crime is in the heart and mind of the user. Just as are ALL crimes. Controlling materials is not going to change the heart and minds of men. That requires spiritual powers. To answer you succinctly: CIGARETTES SHOULD NOT BE MADE ILLEGAL.

Once again, drugs ARE morally wrong, but that does not mean the US GOVERNMENT should carry out the punishments for the violations. The US GOVERNMENT and it's subsidiary STATES are HORRIBLE at correcting the mental, emotional, spiritual, social, and moral errors in the hearts and minds of men. Last time I checked, the US GOVERNMENT doesn't even try.

In reply to this comment by brain:
The arguments in the video actually do make sense when you keep in mind what you're talking about. Of course the same arguments don't make any sense for theft. There is an obvious reason for this: The logic of morals. Pretty much all morals come from the golden rule.

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"

Theft causes harm to the person being stolen from. People don't want to be stolen from. Therefore, people shouldn't steal from other people.

Marijuana obviously doesn't affect other people at all. Marijuana is not in the same category as theft. Marijuana is in the same category as cigarettes, alcohol and other drugs such as LSD and ecstasy. Keep it in the same category and the arguments make sense.

Do you think the taxation of cigarettes has failed? Cigarettes are extremely dangerous compared to marijuana. Lung cancer kills 1.3 million people world wide every year. Do you think we should make it illegal?

Also, keep in mind, it's big business either way you look at it. Either the government makes money, or organized crime makes money. Every single gang in the world stays in business by selling illegal substances. Also, Mexico is currently calling in their army to deal with the problem of drug cartels between the Mexico-US border.

Perhaps a lifetime of anti-drug propaganda has made it difficult for you to tell the difference between drugs and something that is actually morally wrong. It's OK.

P.S. I don't smoke weed. I actually hate it.

In reply to this comment by Sniper007:
Why not start taxing theft? I mean, I don't like theft, I think it should be regulated. Right now, theft isn't regulated! Theft has been illegal for 4,000 years, it's clearly not working. People still steal every day. Its time for a new approach. I think we should legalize it, and tax it. It's a HUGE business!

I'm not saying that marijuana use is the same as theft, but some of the arguments presented in this video make no sense at all.

Heck, I happen to know its actually legal and lawful to grow marijuana on your own land, notwithstanding what the "US GOVERNMENT" says. They are just a foreign owned, private corporation. The problem is that no one has the balls and the brains to study fundamental law in relation to who THEY are, and who the "GOVERNMENT" is; and the apply that law in their lives.

The arguments in the video actually do make sense when you keep in mind what you're talking about. Of course the same arguments don't make any sense for theft. There is an obvious reason for this: The logic of morals. Pretty much all morals come from the golden rule.

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"

Theft causes harm to the person being stolen from. People don't want to be stolen from. Therefore, people shouldn't steal from other people.

Marijuana obviously doesn't affect other people at all. Marijuana is not in the same category as theft. Marijuana is in the same category as cigarettes, alcohol and other drugs such as LSD and ecstasy. Keep it in the same category and the arguments make sense.

Do you think the taxation of cigarettes has failed? Cigarettes are extremely dangerous compared to marijuana. Lung cancer kills 1.3 million people world wide every year. Do you think we should make it illegal?

Also, keep in mind, it's big business either way you look at it. Either the government makes money, or organized crime makes money. Every single gang in the world stays in business by selling illegal substances. Also, Mexico is currently calling in their army to deal with the problem of drug cartels between the Mexico-US border.

Perhaps a lifetime of anti-drug propaganda has made it difficult for you to tell the difference between drugs and something that is actually morally wrong. It's OK.

P.S. I don't smoke weed. I actually hate it.

In reply to this comment by Sniper007:
Why not start taxing theft? I mean, I don't like theft, I think it should be regulated. Right now, theft isn't regulated! Theft has been illegal for 4,000 years, it's clearly not working. People still steal every day. Its time for a new approach. I think we should legalize it, and tax it. It's a HUGE business!

I'm not saying that marijuana use is the same as theft, but some of the arguments presented in this video make no sense at all.

Heck, I happen to know its actually legal and lawful to grow marijuana on your own land, notwithstanding what the "US GOVERNMENT" says. They are just a foreign owned, private corporation. The problem is that no one has the balls and the brains to study fundamental law in relation to who THEY are, and who the "GOVERNMENT" is; and the apply that law in their lives.

Man, Glenn Beck is an idiot!

Also, no one mentioned my favorite reason to end marijuana prohibition, which is to stop funding organized crime. Have you read the news lately about the drug cartels between the Mexico-US border? It's insane.

http://news.google.com/news?ned=us&ncl=d5zPvhcC_gtdKXM9YbtiXIsYoIIIM

We'll probably give Mexico a billion dollars to "do something." Then another billion in weapons because their government is outgunned, which will then be promptly sold to the drug cartels by corrupt government officials. Meanwhile, the end users of drugs here will continue to fund the cartels. So basically what we have is the government getting in the way of free market forces and losing... again. We really should seriously try legalizing drugs.

What a misleading title you got there BillO!?! Drug cartels are arming themselves and fighting a war with each other. Mexico is not arming itself for a war against the United States. I'm guessing you knew that though.

As for what the administration could do... considering the cartels are coming to the US to buy high powered weapons that they can't easily get in Mexico, perhaps increasing enforcement of gun laws might help. just an idea!

btw, you'd think all those extra border patrol agents and fences might just help stop this stuff. oh yeah, that's right, we don't care how much shit we send into mexico (guns, drugs, criminals), as long as it doesn't make its way back over here.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Mexico, Phoenix, drug cartels, illegal weapons, WAR NEXT DOOR' to 'Mexico, Phoenix, Arizona, drug cartels, illegal weapons, war next door' - edited by MrFisk

Your right mauz15, they won't be going to Guatemala, they'll be coming here. Not that our situation will be any better. In fact we just gave $1.4 billion in military hardware to fight the drug cartels. More money down the drain fighting a losing battle. Meanwhile the US drug sales from Mexico generate roughly $24 billion. Time to legalize it.

Arsenault185,

You're in the military, tell me why the Army would put nearly the entire 1st Armored Division adding several thousand soldiers to Fort Bliss. I moved away from El Paso 12 years ago and back then they said they only had 20 years of water left for the region. Seems kinda retarded.