46% of whites worry becoming a majority-minority nation

[StoneByStone]

I don't think it's going to be that bad as far as racial tensions go. What we'll likely see is Latino becoming the new white. Latin America already has its equivalent concept of white, along with associated racial issues towards those of black descent and sometimes indigenous descent.

Well I'm sure at some point, most white Americans will be of Latino descent, as opposed to English/German/Irish descent. But they're still going to be talked about as privileged oppressors. In South Africa, much of the racism is directed at Afrikaners, despite the people responsible for Apartheid mostly being of English descent. Like in America, people see race as the main defining feature in South Africa, so ethnicity doesn't matter as much.
I'm sure that in a generation, when Whites are the minority, and we're being oppressed like in South Africa, many Whites will claim that they're Latino, not WASP. But the anti-white crowd will say white Latinos still "benefit from and contribute to White Supremacy."

The main thing I'm worried about are the associated cultural issues in Latino culture. Most Latino societies have significant issues with corruption that go beyond issues of government structure. Most Latino cultures have a concept of trust that only exists within the family. Those outside of the family are generally distrusted. It's similar to how Italian culture often functions. Cronyism is more rampant in cultures that have this trust paradigm.

Like with Italians, the white Latinos will assimilate and become American. Though the brown Latinos will probably retain their culture in their own enclaves, which is already happening now.

 

[Dachshynddawg]

It's kind of like how native black South Africans don't seem to like Africans from other regions entering their country (to put it mildly).

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/03/world/africa/south-africa-immigrants.html

Yes, that's right human beings are very tribal animal. Those of the same race/ethnicity prefer to hangout with others of the same race and ethnicity. That's why this whole push for INCLUSIVITY and"DIVERSITY" by the left in the US is yet another failed socialist attempt at social engineering that has not and will not work because it contracticts a basic characteristic of human nature.

Moreover, when a government FORCES people of different races/ethnicities to live together in close proximity to each other, the result is social unrest, strife and even violent rioting.

One of many example of this is Detroit, when federal laws were changed allowing Blacks to buy and move into houses the same neighbourbood as all - white in Detroit City. The Whites promptly packed up their belongings and left to resettle in the suburbs outside the City- the phenomenon is not unique to Detroit and sociologists call it "White Flight". Today the population inside the city-limits of Detroit id 82% Black (most of the Whites have long gone) and Detroit is now an American Nightmare where there is: high unemployment, extremely high rates of murder, rape, aggravated assault; high rates of property crime; there is currently a veritable epidemic of substance abuse/addiction in the city chiefly to opiates, extremely high prevalence of individuals infected with HIV/AIDS, high rate of government Welfare dependency, city infrastructure is crumbling due to many years of neglect, vast swathes of urban blight/ urban decay riddle the city, most children are brought up in single parent (mother) families, the quality of public education is wholly unsatisfactory.


I recall reading a magagine article about the decline of Detroit and an elderly White woman who had lived in Detroit in the early 1960's, said that the white Americans of Detroit never held anything against the Blacks -(I guess she was saying they were not racist)- it was just that they did not want Black families living in the house next door or in the same street. I think she was saying that that was TOO close, and given the marked cultural differences and different social mores etc; that exist between Negroes and White Americans there would be aggravation and very possibly conflict, and White middle-class people just don't want that kind of disturbance/strife at home - home is their sanctuary. It is situated in a place surrounded by people like them who hold the same fundamental values and whom they trust and that is how they wanted it to stay.


If you are a White adult American reading this, I would say that you probably live in a middle-class neighbourhood (or, at least, your parents do). If a city council official were to advise you that you were being relocated to a majority Black or Hispanic neighbourhood somewhere in your city as part of a new national program to foster DIVERSITY and counter racial residential segregation in the community, what do you think you'd have to say to the council official ? Something along the lines of "FUCK OFF", I expect. It's not that you are a racist, it's just that you feel comfortable and content living around people who are like you in terns of their the traditions they preserve, their culture, their social manners and mores, basic morality and religious faith (if applicable) People who are, by and large are classic libertarians, as apposed to Black Africam-Americans who are naturally collectivists in terms of their basic political/cultural outlook (although I note - GOD FORBID ! GOD FORBID ! - there are a growing number of White socialists (collectivists) in the US at present.


I am restricting what I say to just one coloured race - African-Americans - though what I have to say applies equally to minority groups like Hispanics/Latinos.

 

[Saudade]

Well I'm sure at some point, most white Americans will be of Latino descent, as opposed to English/German/Irish descent. But they're still going to be talked about as privileged oppressors. In South Africa, much of the racism is directed at Afrikaners, despite the people responsible for Apartheid mostly being of English descent. Like in America, people see race as the main defining feature in South Africa, so ethnicity doesn't matter as much.
I'm sure that in a generation, when Whites are the minority, and we're being oppressed like in South Africa, many Whites will claim that they're Latino, not WASP. But the anti-white crowd will say white Latinos still "benefit from and contribute to White Supremacy."

There's truth to that, although there's another factor to consider. Latinos don't tend to be as liberal about border security. Even though Democrats often try to appeal to Latinos via things like amnesty policies, plenty of Latin American countries are rather strict about immigration and earning citizenship. Even Mexico has aspects of this.

So, if Latinos do become the majority, even the political left will likely have to concede somewhat on border policies. The guilt angle won't work as well when the majority of border crossers will be of a similar ethnicity (and possibly the same ethnicity) as the majority.

So, if it reaches the point that Latinos become the majority, they won't likely be as conciliatory towards the "oppressor" rhetoric as non-Latino whites have been. Mexico isn't exactly known for appeasing their black activists, for example.

Most of Latin America is conservative on social issues as compared with America. Now, economically, they're sometimes more progressive/socialist.

Like with Italians, the white Latinos will assimilate and become American. Though the brown Latinos will probably retain their culture in their own enclaves, which is already happening now.

To an extent, although a heavy Italian presence in many areas brought with it the mafia. It took a lot of effort on the part of the federal government to break the mafia, and a lot of the key players in the government responsible for this were not Italian themselves. Still, there are mafia elements that remain in predominantly Italian parts of the US. The same is true for many Irish parts.

The equivalent with Latinos are the cartels. It will take more vigilance than before by the federal government to crack down on cartel influence and power if America becomes predominantly Latino.

 

[Saudade]

Yes, that's right human beings are very tribal animal. Those of the same race/ethnicity prefer to hangout with others of the same race and ethnicity. That's why this whole push for INCLUSIVITY and"DIVERSITY" by the left in the US is yet another failed socialist attempt at social engineering that has not and will not work because it contracticts a basic characteristic of human nature.

Moreover, when a government FORCES people of different races/ethnicities to live together in close proximity to each other, the result is social unrest, strife and even violent rioting.

One of many example of this is Detroit, when federal laws were changed allowing Blacks to buy and move into houses the same neighbourbood as all - white in Detroit City. The Whites promptly packed up their belongings and left to resettle in the suburbs outside the City- the phenomenon is not unique to Detroit and sociologists call it "White Flight". Today the population inside the city-limits of Detroit id 82% Black (most of the Whites have long gone) and Detroit is now an American Nightmare where there is: high unemployment, extremely high rates of murder, rape, aggravated assault; high rates of property crime; there is currently a veritable epidemic of substance abuse/addiction in the city chiefly to opiates, extremely high prevalence of individuals infected with HIV/AIDS, high rate of government Welfare dependency, city infrastructure is crumbling due to many years of neglect, vast swathes of urban blight/ urban decay riddle the city, most children are brought up in single parent (mother) families, the quality of public education is wholly unsatisfactory.


I recall reading a magagine article about the decline of Detroit and an elderly White woman who had lived in Detroit in the early 1960's, said that the white Americans of Detroit never held anything against the Blacks -(I guess she was saying they were not racist)- it was just that they did not want Black families living in the house next door or in the same street. I think she was saying that that was TOO close, and given the marked cultural differences and different social mores etc; that exist between Negroes and White Americans there would be aggravation and very possibly conflict, and White middle-class people just don't want that kind of disturbance/strife at home - home is their sanctuary. It is situated in a place surrounded by people like them who hold the same fundamental values and whom they trust and that is how they wanted it to stay.


If you are a White adult American reading this, I would say that you live in a middle-class white neighbourhood. If a city council official were to advise you that you were being relocated to a Black or Hispanic neighbourhood somewhere in your city as part of a new national program to foster DIVERSITY in the community, what would you have to say? Something along the lines of "FUCK OFF", I expect. It's not that you are a racist, it's just that you feel comfortable and content living around people who are like you in terns of their their traditions, culture, social manner and mores, basic morality, religious faith (if applicable), who by and large are libertarians as apposed to collectivists in terms of their basic political postition (although I note - GOD FORBID ! GOD FORBID ! - there are a growing number of White socialists in the US at present.

I think a distinction should be drawn between citizens and non-citizens. While I agree that diversity often breeds conflict, citizens should be equals under the law, regardless of race or ethnicity. This includes moving to wherever you want to live. People should be able to voluntarily mix or separate.

With non-citizens, things are different. If you enter a foreign country, you are a guest. You can remain in said country at the discretion of the citizens. If the majority of the citizens want you to leave or to keep you out, then that is what the policy should reflect.

The problem is that the left seems to think that non-citizens should have all of the same rights and privileges as citizens, which gets rid of the point of citizenship. Citizenship itself is a privilege. If non-citizens are essentially the same under the law, then citizenship is no longer a privilege at all.

 

[Dachshynddawg]

I think a distinction should be drawn between citizens and non-citizens. While I agree that diversity often breeds conflict, citizens should be equals under the law, regardless of race or ethnicity. This includes moving to wherever you want to live. People should be able to voluntarily mix or separate.

With non-citizens, things are different. If you enter a foreign country, you are a guest. You can remain in said country at the discretion of the citizens. If the majority of the citizens want you to leave or to keep you out, then that is what the policy should reflect.

The problem is that the left seems to think that non-citizens should have all of the same rights and privileges as citizens, which gets rid of the point of citizenship. Citizenship itself is a privilege. If non-citizens are essentially the same under the law, then citizenship is no longer a privilege at all.

I absolutely agree with what you say about "The Rule of Law", i.e. all men and women must be treated equally under the law , this principle is one of the great foundations of Western Civilization. I agree also that citizenship is a privilege, in ancient Rome foreign immigrants had to earn their Roman citizenship (and it wasn't easy). I am a Conservative, so I also believe that a citizen of , say, the USA, should also be an American patriot (as Trump would say at a MAGA rally: "I know you people, you love America - your hearts all bleed "Red , White and Blue"!!) If you are coming to America as a refugee or immigrant there is a process you must go through to become an American citizen, which ultimately requires yo to swear loyalty to the Constitution and respect the laws of the land, etc. I would expect that these days this is quite a perfunctory process that merely involves reading the pledges from a sheet of paper, and that many foreigners from Latin America or Africa do not really mean the words that they say and maintain allegiance to culture and traditions, etc; of their country of origin.


With regard to non-citizens in America, you have many millions of them at large in the form of illegal aliens, mostly from Latin America. I am not an American (Australian) and in my country if you are a foreign national who enters illegally you are immediately a "criminal at large"; if you are caught by the police (who always ask for valid ID when dealing with shop-lifers, drivers breaking the speed limit, any minor misdemenor) of an Immigration Official you will be placed in jail THAT night and then deported the NEXT morning; the bill for the plane flight will be forwarded to the government of your country of origin. Our federal government has no sense of humour when it comes to illegal aliens.


I think if a country, like America, has laws in place that would-be immigrants seeking to enter the US must comply with, then these laws must be observed, 100%. What I cannot understand is how it is possible for the state of California to snub its nose at this and actively encourage millions of illegal immigrants into the state ?? And not just that but provide these illegal immigrants all sorts of state and federal government benefits ???


As for the left (the socialists) their egalitarian, utopist policy of "Let's take down all of the worlds borders !!" is based on a flawed view of human nature, which they sincerely believe is malleable (but it's not) and in the giant world-wide melting pot of humanity that they are hoping to cook up, everyone will get along just fine because they will behave in a way the Party's central planners and social engineers believe is correct. Unfortunately, they have no idea of what is "correct", and never have. Chairman Mao was sure he was correct, so was Joseph Stalin, Marshall Tito and the charming Pol Pot


Dachshund

 

[Dachshynddawg]

I think a distinction should be drawn between citizens and non-citizens. While I agree that diversity often breeds conflict, citizens should be equals under the law, regardless of race or ethnicity. This includes moving to wherever you want to live. People should be able to voluntarily mix or separate.

With non-citizens, things are different. If you enter a foreign country, you are a guest. You can remain in said country at the discretion of the citizens. If the majority of the citizens want you to leave or to keep you out, then that is what the policy should reflect.

The problem is that the left seems to think that non-citizens should have all of the same rights and privileges as citizens, which gets rid of the point of citizenship. Citizenship itself is a privilege. If non-citizens are essentially the same under the law, then citizenship is no longer a privilege at all.

I absolutely agree with what you say about "The Rule of Law", i.e. all men and women must be treated equally under the law , this principle is one of the great foundations of Western Culture. I agree that citizenship is a privilege, in ancient Rome foreign immigrants had to earn their Roman citizenship (and it wasn't easy). If you are coming to America as a refugee or immigrant there is a process you must go through to become an American citizen, which ultimately requires yo to swear loyalty to the Constitution and respect the laws of the land, etc. I would expect that these days this is quite a perfunctory process that merely involves reading the pledges from a sheet of paper, and that many foreigners from Latin America or Africa do not really mean the words that they say and maintain allegiance to culture and traditions, etc; of their country of origin.


With regard to non-citizens in America, you have many millions of them in the form of illegal aliens, mostly from Latin America. I am not an American (Australian) and in this country if you enter illegally you are effectively a "criminal at large"; if you are caught by the police (who always ask for ID when dealing with shop-lifers, drivers brealking the speed limit, any minor misdemeanour) of an Immigration Official you will be placed in jail THAT night and then deported the NEXT morning with the bill for the flight being presented to illegal immigrants country of origin. Our federal government has no sense of humour when it comes to illegal aliens.


I think if a country like America has laws in place that must be abided by for immigrants seeking to enter the US, then these laws must be observed by any foreign nationals who wish to come and live in America. What I cannot understand is how it is possible for California to snub its nose at this and actively encourage millions of illegal immigrants into the state ?? And not just that but provide these illegal immigrants all sorts of state and federal government benefits ???


As for the left (the socialists) their policy of take down all of the worlds borders is based on a flawed view of human nature, which they believe is malleable (but its not) and in the giant world-wide melting pot of humanity that they are hoping to create, everyone will get along just fine because they will behave in a way the Party's central planners and social engineers believe is correct. Unfortunately they have no idea of what is "correct", and never have. Chairman Mao was sure he was correct, so was Joseph Stalin
and the charming Pol Pot


Dachshund

 

[StoneByStone]

There's truth to that, although there's another factor to consider. Latinos don't tend to be as liberal about border security. Even though Democrats often try to appeal to Latinos via things like amnesty policies, plenty of Latin American countries are rather strict about immigration and earning citizenship. Even Mexico has aspects of this.

So, if Latinos do become the majority, even the political left will likely have to concede somewhat on border policies. The guilt angle won't work as well when the majority of border crossers will be of a similar ethnicity (and possibly the same ethnicity) as the majority.

So, if it reaches the point that Latinos become the majority, they won't likely be as conciliatory towards the "oppressor" rhetoric as non-Latino whites have been. Mexico isn't exactly known for appeasing their black activists, for example.

There was a time when every white ethnic group was Nationalist and wanted tight borders. That changed because the Globalists began using mass media to create White Guilt and a sense of fear that any white person with pro-white attitudes would be hated and ostracized by society. So while it's true that white Latinos in Latin America, and the ones who only recently immigrated here, haven't been cucked by the Globalists, the ones now living in the West eventually will be now that they're being exposed to the anti-white propaganda. I can't imagine it being different for them than all the other white groups that started out Nationalist.

As for being white but still being Latino, I'd compare it to European-Americans and African-Americans. We're supposed to be the same nationality or ethnicity, but race trumps anything else. Brown Latinos will simply complain that white Latinos are racist just like any other white person if they don't want open borders, affirmative action, and brown representation. Eventually, white Latinos won't even see themselves as Latino, anyway. They'll just be white Americans.

To an extent, although a heavy Italian presence in many areas brought with it the mafia. It took a lot of effort on the part of the federal government to break the mafia, and a lot of the key players in the government responsible for this were not Italian themselves. Still, there are mafia elements that remain in predominantly Italian parts of the US. The same is true for many Irish parts.

The equivalent with Latinos are the cartels. It will take more vigilance than before by the federal government to crack down on cartel influence and power if America becomes predominantly Latino.

If the government really wanted to stop organized drug crime, they'd just legalize all drugs. The reason they don't is because of the private prison system, which is also one of the reasons we have open borders.

 

[Saudade]

I absolutely agree with what you say about "The Rule of Law", i.e. all men and women must be treated equally under the law , this principle is one of the great foundations of Western Civilization. I agree also that citizenship is a privilege, in ancient Rome foreign immigrants had to earn their Roman citizenship (and it wasn't easy). I am a Conservative, so I also believe that a citizen of , say, the USA, should also be an American patriot (as Trump would say at a MAGA rally: "I know you people, you love America - your hearts all bleed "Red , White and Blue"!!) If you are coming to America as a refugee or immigrant there is a process you must go through to become an American citizen, which ultimately requires yo to swear loyalty to the Constitution and respect the laws of the land, etc. I would expect that these days this is quite a perfunctory process that merely involves reading the pledges from a sheet of paper, and that many foreigners from Latin America or Africa do not really mean the words that they say and maintain allegiance to culture and traditions, etc; of their country of origin.


With regard to non-citizens in America, you have many millions of them at large in the form of illegal aliens, mostly from Latin America. I am not an American (Australian) and in my country if you are a foreign national who enters illegally you are immediately a "criminal at large"; if you are caught by the police (who always ask for valid ID when dealing with shop-lifers, drivers breaking the speed limit, any minor misdemenor) of an Immigration Official you will be placed in jail THAT night and then deported the NEXT morning; the bill for the plane flight will be forwarded to the government of your country of origin. Our federal government has no sense of humour when it comes to illegal aliens.


I think if a country, like America, has laws in place that would-be immigrants seeking to enter the US must comply with, then these laws must be observed, 100%. What I cannot understand is how it is possible for the state of California to snub its nose at this and actively encourage millions of illegal immigrants into the state ?? And not just that but provide these illegal immigrants all sorts of state and federal government benefits ???


As for the left (the socialists) their egalitarian, utopist policy of "Let's take down all of the worlds borders !!" is based on a flawed view of human nature, which they sincerely believe is malleable (but it's not) and in the giant world-wide melting pot of humanity that they are hoping to cook up, everyone will get along just fine because they will behave in a way the Party's central planners and social engineers believe is correct. Unfortunately, they have no idea of what is "correct", and never have. Chairman Mao was sure he was correct, so was Joseph Stalin, Marshall Tito and the charming Pol Pot


Dachshund

It sounds like Australia has a better grasp of border security than America. That being said, one of the repercussions of states' rights in America is that some states can choose to undermine federal laws. Granted, the federal government can punish them for it. Their funding can be withdrawn for various programs as retaliation, but unfortunately, some attempts to do this to California have been stopped by judges that apparently are more loyal to California than to the nation as a whole.

 

[Saudade]

There was a time when every white ethnic group was Nationalist and wanted tight borders. That changed because the Globalists began using mass media to create White Guilt and a sense of fear that any white person with pro-white attitudes would be hated and ostracized by society. So while it's true that white Latinos in Latin America, and the ones who only recently immigrated here, haven't been cucked by the Globalists, the ones now living in the West eventually will be now that they're being exposed to the anti-white propaganda. I can't imagine it being different for them than all the other white groups that started out Nationalist.

As for being white but still being Latino, I'd compare it to European-Americans and African-Americans. We're supposed to be the same nationality or ethnicity, but race trumps anything else. Brown Latinos will simply complain that white Latinos are racist just like any other white person if they don't want open borders, affirmative action, and brown representation. Eventually, white Latinos won't even see themselves as Latino, anyway. They'll just be white Americans.

That's quite possible. It is true that some Latinos have started to fall for progressive dogma.

If the government really wanted to stop organized drug crime, they'd just legalize all drugs. The reason they don't is because of the private prison system, which is also one of the reasons we have open borders.

I don't think it's that simple. Decriminalization would help a lot. Legalization... not so much. The problem with legalization is that it creates a new market through which illegal elements can launder money. Cartels make a lot more money off of human trafficking than through drugs. If all drugs became legal, that would result in cartels using said market to launder the money they make from human trafficking. They would also still dominate much of the supply of drugs.

Another repercussion of legalizing all drugs is that, at least initially, drug use would increase among the population. More people would try to experiment with various addictive substances, and that would result in more addicts and people in rehab.

Decriminalization works better, because it treats users as addicts and distributors as criminals. The current system doesn't make this distinction, which leads to the high incarceration rate (along with mandatory sentencing).

 

[StoneByStone]

I don't think it's that simple. Decriminalization would help a lot. Legalization... not so much. The problem with legalization is that it creates a new market through which illegal elements can launder money. Cartels make a lot more money off of human trafficking than through drugs. If all drugs became legal, that would result in cartels using said market to launder the money they make from human trafficking. They would also still dominate much of the supply of drugs.

Well that can happen with any business. Cartels could sell candy and then launder money through that. At least with drugs being legal, the cartels that only sell drugs would probably go out of business.

Another repercussion of legalizing all drugs is that, at least initially, drug use would increase among the population. More people would try to experiment with various addictive substances, and that would result in more addicts and people in rehab.

While that's a legit concern, that just hasn't been the case where legalization was tried.
A big reason why so many younger people do drugs is because drug gangs coerce them into using and selling. I'm guessing that when drugs were legalized, and people didn't need to get it on the streets, these gangs went out of business and weren't forcing drugs on kids anymore.

Decriminalization works better, because it treats users as addicts and distributors as criminals. The current system doesn't make this distinction, which leads to the high incarceration rate (along with mandatory sentencing).

That's better because it helps addicts instead of just locking them up, but it wouldn't eliminate the gangs, the black market, or get less people do try drugs.

 

[Saudade]

Well that can happen with any business. Cartels could sell candy and then launder money through that. At least with drugs being legal, the cartels that only sell drugs would probably go out of business.

The crucial part of what I mentioned is that cartels would still dominate the drug market, and very few cartels only deal in drugs. It's no different from how the repeal of Prohibition still allowed the mafia to dominate the alcohol market for a while.

While that's a legit concern, that just hasn't been the case where legalization was tried.
A big reason why so many younger people do drugs is because drug gangs coerce them into using and selling. I'm guessing that when drugs were legalized, and people didn't need to get it on the streets, these gangs went out of business and weren't forcing drugs on kids anymore.

Marijuana use has significantly risen in Colorado. It's not surprising when considering that plenty of adults only avoided it due to worries about legal repercussions. Now that it's legal there, there's not much to dissuade people from using it. Thankfully, pot isn't particularly addictive, but the same logic would apply with more addictive substances if they were legalized.

That's better because it helps addicts instead of just locking them up, but it wouldn't eliminate the gangs, the black market, or get less people do try drugs.

Some people aren't discouraged by illegality, but a lot of people are.

 

[StoneByStone]

The crucial part of what I mentioned is that cartels would still dominate the drug market, and very few cartels only deal in drugs. It's no different from how the repeal of Prohibition still allowed the mafia to dominate the alcohol market for a while.

Yeah, they dominated the alcohol market for a little while, but then so many people went back to buying alcohol in stores, that the mafia had to move on to selling yayo. The same thing would happen to the Mexican cartels.

Marijuana use has significantly risen in Colorado. It's not surprising when considering that plenty of adults only avoided it due to worries about legal repercussions. Now that it's legal there, there's not much to dissuade people from using it. Thankfully, pot isn't particularly addictive, but the same logic would apply with more addictive substances if they were legalized.

Marijuana isn't a hard drug. In Portugal, where they legalized all drugs, the use of hard drugs dropped.

 

[Saudade]

Yeah, they dominated the alcohol market for a little while, but then so many people went back to buying alcohol in stores, that the mafia had to move on to selling yayo. The same thing would happen to the Mexican cartels.



Marijuana isn't a hard drug. In Portugal, where they legalized all drugs, the use of hard drugs dropped.

Portugal didn't legalize all drugs. They decriminalized all drugs.

Portugal's system is actually the one that I tend to favor using as a model for policy.

 

[Mason Melchizedek]

the other 54% are Republicans.......

Bullshit

 

[Mason Melchizedek]

It's kind of like how native black South Africans don't seem to like Africans from other regions entering their country (to put it mildly).

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/03/world/africa/south-africa-immigrants.html

This is America

 

[Mason Melchizedek]

And with the way Whites are talked about and treated in America now, I can just imagine how bad it's going to be when we're a minority.

America will be a better nation when it's a true melting pot,not a white dominated society

 

[Mason Melchizedek]

It sounds like Australia has a better grasp of border security than America. That being said, one of the repercussions of states' rights in America is that some states can choose to undermine federal laws. Granted, the federal government can punish them for it. Their funding can be withdrawn for various programs as retaliation, but unfortunately, some attempts to do this to California have been stopped by judges that apparently are more loyal to California than to the nation as a whole.

Australia is surrounded by water,not remotely like America's situation!

 

[Mason Melchizedek]

The crucial part of what I mentioned is that cartels would still dominate the drug market, and very few cartels only deal in drugs. It's no different from how the repeal of Prohibition still allowed the mafia to dominate the alcohol market for a while.



Marijuana use has significantly risen in Colorado. It's not surprising when considering that plenty of adults only avoided it due to worries about legal repercussions. Now that it's legal there, there's not much to dissuade people from using it. Thankfully, pot isn't particularly addictive, but the same logic would apply with more addictive substances if they were legalized.




Some people aren't discouraged by illegality, but a lot of people are.

The Drug War has been a total disaster!
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

 

[Loving91390]

Australia is surrounded by water,not remotely like America's situation!

So America is not surrounded by water ?

 

[Guno צְבִי]