ISIS impregnates 9-year-old girl

[Spendulus]

So you came across a rehabilitation facility (as differentiated from a prison) in Austria- who has a much more progressive view of incarceration than the US to begin with, and for which no violent criminals would be housed in- and are representing all prison conditions to be like this. Is that the point you're making? Because that seems to be your point, that people who commit barbaric acts will wind up in a facility like this, so we better just brutalize them instead.

Most of the prisoners in Bastoy (Norway) were convicted of violent offenses, such as murder or rape. I don't think it is a nice idea to provide such people with 5-star facilities inside the prison. If I had the power, then I'll ship them either to the White Swan or to the Black Dolphin in Russia.

I suppose it depends what the intent of prison is. If it's to reform people and have them be functioning members of society when they're released, I think Bastoy is shows some promise. If it's to punish people in harsh conditions during and after imprisonment so they are likely to return to crime, the US prison system is exemplary.

Naw.  There are many levels and styles of prison in the US, ranging from minimal confinement to single cell lockup.  There are many, many facilities for druggies which are more like drug rehab facilities than prison.  Etc.  

It's probably the luck of the draw though than any top down philosophical decision.  You sure wouldn't want to be in the state penn in one of the very poor states like Mississippi.

Are you disputing that the majority of prisons do not make rehabilitation their primary function? The war on drugs has proven to be the death of rehabilitative prisons as they are overcrowded past their ability to function in a rehabilitative manner, even when they're specifically built to be so. Here's a nice and short synopsis of the changing role of the US prison system: http://www.adpsr.org/home/prison_history.  Perhaps if the war on drugs were eliminated, there would be less stress on the system and it could return to a more rehabilitative role, but that would require a seismic political shift in the national landscape, especially by the republican party. I'm hopeful, but not expectant.

I'm saying that I know of several large systems in Texas that are strictly for drug offenders, which are minimal security.  Boatloads of people go to those types of places.  Your article conveniently ignores this reality.  But Texas has money, it's pretty rich as states go.  The harshest, most horrible places will always be states short on funds and hence short on basic necessities for inmates.

Also, you might want to rethink the concept of the "war on drugs by Republicans" since most attorneys vote Democratic (at least historically, that may change with the flight away from Obama).  This means the main cash from the "Drug war", that of the courts, legal system and it's attorney inhabitants - are largely Democratic.....

I've never seen any marked improvement in drug law enforcement where the sheriffs or police chiefs were Democratic, for example, over Republican.  With the obvious exception of the Oakland/SF area, and maybe Oregon/Portland, before some drugs were legalized up there.  Try Louisiana for downright mean, harsh enforcement of drug law by Democrats.  The list could go on and on. 

In short, false dichotomy.   About as ridiculous as the "Republican war on women."

[1714255699]

1714255699

[1714255699]

1714255699

[1714255699]

1714255699

[1714255699]

1714255699

[1714255699]

1714255699

[1714255699]

1714255699

[bryant.coleman]

You know what?  I don't mind a prison where people don't suffer so much. 

If you can keep them separate from the population they'd otherwise prey on, and not fuck them up so badly that they can never rejoin civilization again, I'd say you're doing your job.

The problem with treating prisoners badly is that you make them harder and nastier and more out-of-step with your civilian society than they were to start with.  You fuck them up so badly that releasing them doesn't work all that well. 

I don't want the prisoners to suffer either. But the problem here is something different. Consider a Somali migrant who has just reached Norway and being granted asylum status. He has no educational qualifications, and there fore he can't find a meaningful job. Now this guy decides to rape a few local women. (According to latest stats, the vast majority of the rapes in Norway and Sweden are being committed by people with an immigrant background). As a punishment for his crime, he is sent to the Bastoy prison, where he is allowed to have 5-star facilities and other options such as video-gaming and sauna, which would have otherwise been unavailable to him. Now this guy will tell to his friends: "Hey, look at me... I am enjoying my stay here... you should come here too". Now this is what I call "encouraging crimes".

[jaysabi]

So you came across a rehabilitation facility (as differentiated from a prison) in Austria- who has a much more progressive view of incarceration than the US to begin with, and for which no violent criminals would be housed in- and are representing all prison conditions to be like this. Is that the point you're making? Because that seems to be your point, that people who commit barbaric acts will wind up in a facility like this, so we better just brutalize them instead.

Most of the prisoners in Bastoy (Norway) were convicted of violent offenses, such as murder or rape. I don't think it is a nice idea to provide such people with 5-star facilities inside the prison. If I had the power, then I'll ship them either to the White Swan or to the Black Dolphin in Russia.

I suppose it depends what the intent of prison is. If it's to reform people and have them be functioning members of society when they're released, I think Bastoy is shows some promise. If it's to punish people in harsh conditions during and after imprisonment so they are likely to return to crime, the US prison system is exemplary.

Naw.  There are many levels and styles of prison in the US, ranging from minimal confinement to single cell lockup.  There are many, many facilities for druggies which are more like drug rehab facilities than prison.  Etc.  

It's probably the luck of the draw though than any top down philosophical decision.  You sure wouldn't want to be in the state penn in one of the very poor states like Mississippi.

Are you disputing that the majority of prisons do not make rehabilitation their primary function? The war on drugs has proven to be the death of rehabilitative prisons as they are overcrowded past their ability to function in a rehabilitative manner, even when they're specifically built to be so. Here's a nice and short synopsis of the changing role of the US prison system: http://www.adpsr.org/home/prison_history.  Perhaps if the war on drugs were eliminated, there would be less stress on the system and it could return to a more rehabilitative role, but that would require a seismic political shift in the national landscape, especially by the republican party. I'm hopeful, but not expectant.

I'm saying that I know of several large systems in Texas that are strictly for drug offenders, which are minimal security.  Boatloads of people go to those types of places.  Your article conveniently ignores this reality.  But Texas has money, it's pretty rich as states go.  The harshest, most horrible places will always be states short on funds and hence short on basic necessities for inmates.

Also, you might want to rethink the concept of the "war on drugs by Republicans" since most attorneys vote Democratic (at least historically, that may change with the flight away from Obama).  This means the main cash from the "Drug war", that of the courts, legal system and it's attorney inhabitants - are largely Democratic.....

I've never seen any marked improvement in drug law enforcement where the sheriffs or police chiefs were Democratic, for example, over Republican.  With the obvious exception of the Oakland/SF area, and maybe Oregon/Portland, before some drugs were legalized up there.  Try Louisiana for downright mean, harsh enforcement of drug law by Democrats.  The list could go on and on.  

In short, false dichotomy.   About as ridiculous as the "Republican war on women."

The republican party is the one that stands in the way of legalization. That's the whole basis of the "republican war on drugs." I'm talking legislatively. It doesn't matter what party to local officials are when the republicans block reform on the national or state level. Those local police still have to enforce the law.

[jaysabi]

You know what?  I don't mind a prison where people don't suffer so much.  

If you can keep them separate from the population they'd otherwise prey on, and not fuck them up so badly that they can never rejoin civilization again, I'd say you're doing your job.

The problem with treating prisoners badly is that you make them harder and nastier and more out-of-step with your civilian society than they were to start with.  You fuck them up so badly that releasing them doesn't work all that well.  

I don't want the prisoners to suffer either. But the problem here is something different. Consider a Somali migrant who has just reached Norway and being granted asylum status. He has no educational qualifications, and there fore he can't find a meaningful job. Now this guy decides to rape a few local women. (According to latest stats, the vast majority of the rapes in Norway and Sweden are being committed by people with an immigrant background). As a punishment for his crime, he is sent to the Bastoy prison, where he is allowed to have 5-star facilities and other options such as video-gaming and sauna, which would have otherwise been unavailable to him. Now this guy will tell to his friends: "Hey, look at me... I am enjoying my stay here... you should come here too". Now this is what I call "encouraging crimes".

Why would I consider such a ridiculous scenario as people with no job prospects deciding to just be serial rapists? And if you're going to cite something as a fact, provide the basis for it. (Where are you getting the "latest stats" from?)

[erikalui]

You know what?  I don't mind a prison where people don't suffer so much. 

If you can keep them separate from the population they'd otherwise prey on, and not fuck them up so badly that they can never rejoin civilization again, I'd say you're doing your job.

The problem with treating prisoners badly is that you make them harder and nastier and more out-of-step with your civilian society than they were to start with.  You fuck them up so badly that releasing them doesn't work all that well. 

Best is a death sentence for those who commit rape and murder. They should be no mercy for such prisoners. When they aren't alive, they will never rejoin civilization. Prisoners are made to suffer as they have done wrong and committed a crime. Can't see people feeling bad for such criminals. They are not punished because they are good and deserve the worst treatment.

Those who rob and commit minor crimes can be spared and in that case, they shouldn't be treated badly in jail so that they come out and try to live their life in a better way.

[RodeoX]

You know what?  I don't mind a prison where people don't suffer so much. 

If you can keep them separate from the population they'd otherwise prey on, and not fuck them up so badly that they can never rejoin civilization again, I'd say you're doing your job.

The problem with treating prisoners badly is that you make them harder and nastier and more out-of-step with your civilian society than they were to start with.  You fuck them up so badly that releasing them doesn't work all that well. 

I agree. When we hear about criminal acts we often want vengeance and blood. We want the bad guy to suffer. If only that made them repent. In fact it turns prison into finishing school for criminals. This is not a problem if the offender is a child killing axe murderer. But most crimes are not that bad and it may be better to try bringing petty criminals into the fold of society. Even though it is not as satisfying as torturing them in a cage.   

[Spendulus]

So you came across a rehabilitation facility (as differentiated from a prison) in Austria- who has a much more progressive view of incarceration than the US to begin with, and for which no violent criminals would be housed in- and are representing all prison conditions to be like this. Is that the point you're making? Because that seems to be your point, that people who commit barbaric acts will wind up in a facility like this, so we better just brutalize them instead.

Most of the prisoners in Bastoy (Norway) were convicted of violent offenses, such as murder or rape. I don't think it is a nice idea to provide such people with 5-star facilities inside the prison. If I had the power, then I'll ship them either to the White Swan or to the Black Dolphin in Russia.

I suppose it depends what the intent of prison is. If it's to reform people and have them be functioning members of society when they're released, I think Bastoy is shows some promise. If it's to punish people in harsh conditions during and after imprisonment so they are likely to return to crime, the US prison system is exemplary.

Naw.  There are many levels and styles of prison in the US, ranging from minimal confinement to single cell lockup.  There are many, many facilities for druggies which are more like drug rehab facilities than prison.  Etc.  

It's probably the luck of the draw though than any top down philosophical decision.  You sure wouldn't want to be in the state penn in one of the very poor states like Mississippi.

Are you disputing that the majority of prisons do not make rehabilitation their primary function? The war on drugs has proven to be the death of rehabilitative prisons as they are overcrowded past their ability to function in a rehabilitative manner, even when they're specifically built to be so. Here's a nice and short synopsis of the changing role of the US prison system: http://www.adpsr.org/home/prison_history.  Perhaps if the war on drugs were eliminated, there would be less stress on the system and it could return to a more rehabilitative role, but that would require a seismic political shift in the national landscape, especially by the republican party. I'm hopeful, but not expectant.

I'm saying that I know of several large systems in Texas that are strictly for drug offenders, which are minimal security.  Boatloads of people go to those types of places.  Your article conveniently ignores this reality.  But Texas has money, it's pretty rich as states go.  The harshest, most horrible places will always be states short on funds and hence short on basic necessities for inmates.

Also, you might want to rethink the concept of the "war on drugs by Republicans" since most attorneys vote Democratic (at least historically, that may change with the flight away from Obama).  This means the main cash from the "Drug war", that of the courts, legal system and it's attorney inhabitants - are largely Democratic.....

I've never seen any marked improvement in drug law enforcement where the sheriffs or police chiefs were Democratic, for example, over Republican.  With the obvious exception of the Oakland/SF area, and maybe Oregon/Portland, before some drugs were legalized up there.  Try Louisiana for downright mean, harsh enforcement of drug law by Democrats.  The list could go on and on.  

In short, false dichotomy.   About as ridiculous as the "Republican war on women."

The republican party is the one that stands in the way of legalization. That's the whole basis of the "republican war on drugs." I'm talking legislatively. It doesn't matter what party to local officials are when the republicans block reform on the national or state level. Those local police still have to enforce the law.

No they do not.  Local sheriffs have virtually unlimited ability to do what they choose.

And I'm highly skeptical of your belief there or has been any thing resembling a "republican war on drugs."  Yes Nixon, a repub, created it.  But Clinton and Obama have been perfectly fine with it.  What you've seen is individual states stepping forward and voting weed legal. 

I can't say it really matters to me if those states are largely Demo or Repub.   For sure your four border states are not going to vote weed legal, because of the horrific power it'd give the Mexican cartels to move right into the USA.  But all power to DC, Colorado, etc...

[transient858]

Doesn't Indian do the same to their own country female?

[RodeoX]

...
For sure your four border states are not going to vote weed legal, because of the horrific power it'd give the Mexican cartels to move right into the USA.  But all power to DC, Colorado, etc...

Can I question that? It seems to me that if one of those states legalized pot, the primary loser would be the Mexican cartels. The illegal status of MJ is essential for their survival. If I were a drug lord I would donate millions to any candidate that will fight to keep MJ illegal. It would be a disaster if people could grow their own.

[Spendulus]

...
For sure your four border states are not going to vote weed legal, because of the horrific power it'd give the Mexican cartels to move right into the USA.  But all power to DC, Colorado, etc...

Can I question that? It seems to me that if one of those states legalized pot, the primary loser would be the Mexican cartels. The illegal status of MJ is essential for their survival. If I were a drug lord I would donate millions to any candidate that will fight to keep MJ illegal. It would be a disaster if people could grow their own.

Okay, let me translate that.  Lower PRICES for weed would be a proportional loss for the cartels.

But aren't we seeing, not lower but higher prices?  That's what I read at least about legal weed in Colorado. 

And believe me, you do not want these cartel gangsters positioning themselves at the borders of say, Texas and Arizona....this has nothing to do with weed being legal or illegal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Drug_War

By the end of Felipe Calderón's administration (2006–12), the official death toll of the Mexican Drug War was at least 60,000.[79] Estimates set the death toll above 120,000 killed by 2013, not including 27,000 missing.[80][81]

[RodeoX]

...
For sure your four border states are not going to vote weed legal, because of the horrific power it'd give the Mexican cartels to move right into the USA.  But all power to DC, Colorado, etc...

Can I question that? It seems to me that if one of those states legalized pot, the primary loser would be the Mexican cartels. The illegal status of MJ is essential for their survival. If I were a drug lord I would donate millions to any candidate that will fight to keep MJ illegal. It would be a disaster if people could grow their own.

Okay, let me translate that.  Lower PRICES for weed would be a proportional loss for the cartels.

But aren't we seeing, not lower but higher prices?  That's what I read at least about legal weed in Colorado. 

And believe me, you do not want these cartel gangsters positioning themselves at the borders of say, Texas and Arizona....this has nothing to do with weed being legal or illegal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Drug_War

By the end of Felipe Calderón's administration (2006–12), the official death toll of the Mexican Drug War was at least 60,000.[79] Estimates set the death toll above 120,000 killed by 2013, not including 27,000 missing.[80][81]

If I were them I guess i would not give up without a fight. Perhaps some will try to strong-arm the dispensaries? But I did hear an interpretation about the price of weed in legal states. What a guy at a dispensary in Washington state told me was that the price is kept high to keep the weed from leaving the state. They could be profitable selling a quarter for $20. But then people would drive there and load up to sell in non-legal states. At least that was the thought.

But yeah,  the Mexican gangs are bad dudes. It's become a war for control of Mexico as much as a business.

[Spendulus]

...
For sure your four border states are not going to vote weed legal, because of the horrific power it'd give the Mexican cartels to move right into the USA.  But all power to DC, Colorado, etc...

Can I question that? It seems to me that if one of those states legalized pot, the primary loser would be the Mexican cartels. The illegal status of MJ is essential for their survival. If I were a drug lord I would donate millions to any candidate that will fight to keep MJ illegal. It would be a disaster if people could grow their own.

Okay, let me translate that.  Lower PRICES for weed would be a proportional loss for the cartels.

But aren't we seeing, not lower but higher prices?  That's what I read at least about legal weed in Colorado. 

And believe me, you do not want these cartel gangsters positioning themselves at the borders of say, Texas and Arizona....this has nothing to do with weed being legal or illegal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Drug_War

By the end of Felipe Calderón's administration (2006–12), the official death toll of the Mexican Drug War was at least 60,000.[79] Estimates set the death toll above 120,000 killed by 2013, not including 27,000 missing.[80][81]

If I were them I guess i would not give up without a fight. Perhaps some will try to strong-arm the dispensaries? But I did hear an interpretation about the price of weed in legal states. What a guy at a dispensary in Washington state told me was that the price is kept high to keep the weed from leaving the state. They could be profitable selling a quarter for $20. But then people would drive there and load up to sell in non-legal states. At least that was the thought.

But yeah,  the Mexican gangs are bad dudes. It's become a war for control of Mexico as much as a business.

If I was running a state quite likely I'd arrange a very cheap in state price.  There are a number of reasons for this.    I guess I can't see anything wrong with people driving in to buy it.  Nobody's going to drive 600 miles to save $20.

One interesting argument that I read somewhere about the Silk Road "on line sales approach" was that people were safer buying that way instead of going to their local ghetto street corner.   That does count on any list of pluses and minus as a plus.   Similarly they would be safer buying in a legal state.

[Spendulus]

....

If I were them I guess i would not give up without a fight. Perhaps some will try to strong-arm the dispensaries? But I did hear an interpretation about the price of weed in legal states. What a guy at a dispensary in Washington state told me was that the price is kept high to keep the weed from leaving the state. They could be profitable selling a quarter for $20. But then people would drive there and load up to sell in non-legal states. At least that was the thought.

But yeah,  the Mexican gangs are bad dudes. It's become a war for control of Mexico as much as a business.

Here is an interesting thread on Glocktalk.com forum, about legalizing weed in Texas.  This is a site largely populated by LEO and most of the discussion is about defense and weapons, but there are subforums on social issues.

You might be surprised what actual police think about the weed laws.

http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1576348

And look at what I found there....lol....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=A6c6eUeoa9Q

[bryant.coleman]

...
For sure your four border states are not going to vote weed legal, because of the horrific power it'd give the Mexican cartels to move right into the USA.  But all power to DC, Colorado, etc...

Can I question that? It seems to me that if one of those states legalized pot, the primary loser would be the Mexican cartels. The illegal status of MJ is essential for their survival. If I were a drug lord I would donate millions to any candidate that will fight to keep MJ illegal. It would be a disaster if people could grow their own.

Exactly. Any drug legalization in the United States will wipe out the drug cartels in Mexico. Legalization means lower prices, and the cartels will see their profitability down by 99%. That said, Cocaine is a much larger revenue earner for the cartels when compared to Marijuana. And no one is ever going to legalize cocaine.

[RodeoX]

Interesting stuff guys. We got a little off track from ISIS pedophiles, but interesting. And you gota love Willy & Merle! 

[Spendulus]

Interesting stuff guys. We got a little off track from ISIS pedophiles, but interesting. And you gota love Willy & Merle! 

for some reason this all reminds me of Sargent Stadanko.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQKzZh-ldCw

[legendster]

Welcome to Qatar, where practically you can marry a newborn baby girl.

"Here you go, enjoy your brand new wife!!"

[jaysabi]

So you came across a rehabilitation facility (as differentiated from a prison) in Austria- who has a much more progressive view of incarceration than the US to begin with, and for which no violent criminals would be housed in- and are representing all prison conditions to be like this. Is that the point you're making? Because that seems to be your point, that people who commit barbaric acts will wind up in a facility like this, so we better just brutalize them instead.

Most of the prisoners in Bastoy (Norway) were convicted of violent offenses, such as murder or rape. I don't think it is a nice idea to provide such people with 5-star facilities inside the prison. If I had the power, then I'll ship them either to the White Swan or to the Black Dolphin in Russia.

I suppose it depends what the intent of prison is. If it's to reform people and have them be functioning members of society when they're released, I think Bastoy is shows some promise. If it's to punish people in harsh conditions during and after imprisonment so they are likely to return to crime, the US prison system is exemplary.

Naw.  There are many levels and styles of prison in the US, ranging from minimal confinement to single cell lockup.  There are many, many facilities for druggies which are more like drug rehab facilities than prison.  Etc.  

It's probably the luck of the draw though than any top down philosophical decision.  You sure wouldn't want to be in the state penn in one of the very poor states like Mississippi.

Are you disputing that the majority of prisons do not make rehabilitation their primary function? The war on drugs has proven to be the death of rehabilitative prisons as they are overcrowded past their ability to function in a rehabilitative manner, even when they're specifically built to be so. Here's a nice and short synopsis of the changing role of the US prison system: http://www.adpsr.org/home/prison_history.  Perhaps if the war on drugs were eliminated, there would be less stress on the system and it could return to a more rehabilitative role, but that would require a seismic political shift in the national landscape, especially by the republican party. I'm hopeful, but not expectant.

I'm saying that I know of several large systems in Texas that are strictly for drug offenders, which are minimal security.  Boatloads of people go to those types of places.  Your article conveniently ignores this reality.  But Texas has money, it's pretty rich as states go.  The harshest, most horrible places will always be states short on funds and hence short on basic necessities for inmates.

Also, you might want to rethink the concept of the "war on drugs by Republicans" since most attorneys vote Democratic (at least historically, that may change with the flight away from Obama).  This means the main cash from the "Drug war", that of the courts, legal system and it's attorney inhabitants - are largely Democratic.....

I've never seen any marked improvement in drug law enforcement where the sheriffs or police chiefs were Democratic, for example, over Republican.  With the obvious exception of the Oakland/SF area, and maybe Oregon/Portland, before some drugs were legalized up there.  Try Louisiana for downright mean, harsh enforcement of drug law by Democrats.  The list could go on and on.  

In short, false dichotomy.   About as ridiculous as the "Republican war on women."

The republican party is the one that stands in the way of legalization. That's the whole basis of the "republican war on drugs." I'm talking legislatively. It doesn't matter what party to local officials are when the republicans block reform on the national or state level. Those local police still have to enforce the law.

No they do not.  Local sheriffs have virtually unlimited ability to do what they choose.

And I'm highly skeptical of your belief there or has been any thing resembling a "republican war on drugs."  Yes Nixon, a repub, created it.  But Clinton and Obama have been perfectly fine with it.  What you've seen is individual states stepping forward and voting weed legal. 

I can't say it really matters to me if those states are largely Demo or Repub.   For sure your four border states are not going to vote weed legal, because of the horrific power it'd give the Mexican cartels to move right into the USA.  But all power to DC, Colorado, etc...

Oh really?  1) Congressional Republicans Rail Against Legalization of Marijuana: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/31/colorado-marijuana-legalization_n_5638758.html  2) A republican congressman (Randy Harris, MD) promised to prevent a bill from proceeding through congress after DC residents voted to legalize marijuana. (Congress reviews all laws DC passes and can hold up any law it disagrees with.) 3) Republican presidential candidates on the record against legalization: Christie, Bush, Rubio, Walker, Cruz  http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/la-na-marijuana-republicans-20150509-story.html#page=1 4) The republican Attorneys General of Oklahoma and Nebraska have sued Colorado over its legalization of marijuana. http://abovethelaw.com/2015/05/marijuana-melee-nebraska-and-oklahoma-v-colorado/

There's more than substantial evidence to prove republicans are the party standing in the way of legalization. There are some republicans who favor legalization, as there are some democrats who favor prohibition, but they are exceptions that prove the rule.

[jaysabi]

...
For sure your four border states are not going to vote weed legal, because of the horrific power it'd give the Mexican cartels to move right into the USA.  But all power to DC, Colorado, etc...

Can I question that? It seems to me that if one of those states legalized pot, the primary loser would be the Mexican cartels. The illegal status of MJ is essential for their survival. If I were a drug lord I would donate millions to any candidate that will fight to keep MJ illegal. It would be a disaster if people could grow their own.

Okay, let me translate that.  Lower PRICES for weed would be a proportional loss for the cartels.

But aren't we seeing, not lower but higher prices?  That's what I read at least about legal weed in Colorado. 

And believe me, you do not want these cartel gangsters positioning themselves at the borders of say, Texas and Arizona....this has nothing to do with weed being legal or illegal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Drug_War

By the end of Felipe Calderón's administration (2006–12), the official death toll of the Mexican Drug War was at least 60,000.[79] Estimates set the death toll above 120,000 killed by 2013, not including 27,000 missing.[80][81]

No, there is near universal agreement that the black market is what elevates price. It was true with alcohol prohibition and it's the same with drugs. The illegality makes it profitable for those who are willing to take the risk, or have the firepower to be untouchable.

[Spendulus]

...
For sure your four border states are not going to vote weed legal, because of the horrific power it'd give the Mexican cartels to move right into the USA.  But all power to DC, Colorado, etc...

Can I question that? It seems to me that if one of those states legalized pot, the primary loser would be the Mexican cartels. The illegal status of MJ is essential for their survival. If I were a drug lord I would donate millions to any candidate that will fight to keep MJ illegal. It would be a disaster if people could grow their own.

Okay, let me translate that.  Lower PRICES for weed would be a proportional loss for the cartels.

But aren't we seeing, not lower but higher prices?  That's what I read at least about legal weed in Colorado. 

And believe me, you do not want these cartel gangsters positioning themselves at the borders of say, Texas and Arizona....this has nothing to do with weed being legal or illegal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Drug_War

By the end of Felipe Calderón's administration (2006–12), the official death toll of the Mexican Drug War was at least 60,000.[79] Estimates set the death toll above 120,000 killed by 2013, not including 27,000 missing.[80][81]

No, there is near universal agreement that the black market is what elevates price. It was true with alcohol prohibition and it's the same with drugs. The illegality makes it profitable for those who are willing to take the risk, or have the firepower to be untouchable.

It is not the illegality, but the level of enforcement of those laws which creates high prices.

For example I once say a whole row of tables - maybe 25 - right across the street from the courthouse in Capestown, S Africa.  I asked one of the guys selling weed - "Dakka" was it legal.  He laughed and said "Oh, no, man.  But the police are busy with important things like murder and rape.  They don't care."

This would not have been a case where the "fact of illegality" affected price.  Or maybe just to the degree that some payoffs were involved.