Mexico adopts new drug policy

theloniusfleabag · May 2, 2006

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060502/ap_on_...ca/mexico_drugs

While I don't agree with hard drug usage, like heroin, I think that this approach will be better in the long run. it will free up police time to go after dealers and producers, rather than pursuing the common user at great cost and almost no effect.

Naci Sey · May 2, 2006

I agree that this is a step in the right direction. Criminalizing possession of small amounts targets the wrong people.

geoffrey · May 3, 2006

Suprisingly, I am starting to see some of the reasoning behind decriminalisation.

I don't think people should be free to do drugs. It's of a cost to me, to society, to families. I also do not believe that governments should provide addictive drugs to their people, I spoke about this on the VLT thread.

I can't see how it could possibly be legal to buy a drug from someone that has it illegally or produced it illegally. That's like saying that stolen property should be legal to hold if you didn't know it was stolen. Buyer beware sort of.

This is why I haven't quite climbed the fence to the decriminalisation side of the issue.

But I do see drug abuse as a disease and mental problem, a health issue, not a criminality issue. These people, especially the youth offenders need help, and alot more then they are getting. Throwing people in jail won't solve the problem. That being said, my points above do prevent me from accepting decriminalisation as a reasonable platform.

Forced rehab for drug users would be a reasonable compromise in my books, though costly, it seems the only ethical decision.

GostHacked · May 3, 2006

Canada was on the right track untill Harper became PM, then that avenue was roadblocked, and the motion/bill killed. For once I was looking at Canada in a progressive way. But not that is over.

I agree that it will put more focus on the real crimes instead of busting someone for a couple grams of pot or weed.

Geoffrey, your 'stolen property' anaolgy does not fit here. The drugs were not someone elses to begin with The dealers did not steal from another drug dealer (ok they do, and usually someone gets hurt/killed when that happens so it's not an option they like to take). If drug dealers want to pop each other, well fine by me really. I am really happy that you see some benifits to decriminalization. It is not a one grand solution, but it is a start and a gateway to the next step.

If I want to get high,baked,stoned ect, that is my choice and I keep it to myself. Selling however to unknowing uneducated individuals is where I draw the line.

Decriminalization is the right way to go. This will put more police efforts into stuff that really matters and will make a difference. Bust the dealer and you can solve the problem. But busting the clients does not address the real issue at all.

BubberMiley · May 3, 2006

I don't think people should be free to do drugs. It's of a cost to me, to society, to families.

How does it cost you anything, other than the cost of enforcing the existing laws? And besides, there is a big difference between drug use and drug abuse, just as there is a difference between "social" drinking and alcoholism.

geoffrey · May 3, 2006

I don't think people should be free to do drugs. It's of a cost to me, to society, to families.

How does it cost you anything, other than the cost of enforcing the existing laws? And besides, there is a big difference between drug use and drug abuse, just as there is a difference between "social" drinking and alcoholism.

Taxes. Health care. If it ain't good for ya, its costing us all. Smoking and alcohol are in this category too.

theloniusfleabag · May 3, 2006

Dear geoffrey,

Taxes. Health care. If it ain't good for ya, its costing us all. Smoking and alcohol are in this category too.

True enough, but some things, in moderation, can be beneficial.

I am against decriminalization, actually, and would prefer outright legalization of marijuana. Decrim does not really address the issues of grow-ops, gang related trafficking, etc. that are very damaging in their own right.

BubberMiley · May 4, 2006

Taxes. Health care. If it ain't good for ya, its costing us all. Smoking and alcohol are in this category too.

My brother-in-law was laid up for three months in traction from skiing in Banff, but I wouldn't criminalize his behaviour because it costs the health care system money.

crazymf · May 4, 2006

Hello all,

I was away for a while working off a drug charge,....not.

Anyway, I come back to this topic and find some of the attitudes absolutely unbelievable to me.

My position is against any decrim or legalization of any more drugs than are already legal. ie- booze

Why can't people just go get pissed if they want out of reality??

1. Perhaps because drugs are easier to get for minors? There's a real reason for decriminalizing illicit drugs.

2. Perhaps it's harder to detect some drugs on a roadside breath test. Therefore people can be impaired and not get caught. Lovely.

No, opening the door to legalizing more drugs will just lead to more drugs IMO.

With all the illegals crossing the border into the USA, the lightheaded Mexican will infiltrate into American society and pressure an already losing battle in the wrong direction.

I guess I'm old fashioned. I view this move by Fox to be a severe degradation of their society.

Oh, and flea, to further your train of thought...

What would happen if the cops actually catch all the drug dealers?

They'd have a whole bunch of unhappy addicts on their hands and the country may collapse in chaos.

...unless you are visioning a perpetual motion machine of more cops chasing more dealers and so on.....

BubberMiley · May 4, 2006

You argument is so rambling and incoherent, I'd suspect you've been drinking to "escape reality."

theloniusfleabag · May 4, 2006

Dear crazymf,

Oh, and flea, to further your train of thought...
What would happen if the cops actually catch all the drug dealers?

They'd have a whole bunch of unhappy addicts on their hands and the country may collapse in chaos.

No, some addict's lives may collapse into chaos (well, even further into chaos), but try to criminalize booze and see what happens.

It is my view that all natural plants should be legal (with accompanying laws of standards), while refining them should be 'severely illegal'. The poppy, the mushroom and the weed all occur naturally (or by God's will, if that is your bent), so banning (or rendering 'illegal') a part of nature seems a bit silly. Like demanding all the 'phallus plants' be hidden from sight, or covered appropriately.

It is a question of "Use versus Abuse", because they are already so well established, it has long been proven that most people can use some intoxicants responsibly. I think the line can be drawn at the refineries.

...unless you are visioning a perpetual motion machine of more cops chasing more dealers and so on.....

I read a great 'comic book' by some weird 'adult' artist, where that notion was given a couple of pages...'robot cops' that did such a good job they had to produce 'robot robbers' to keep them from harrassing everyone.

geoffrey · May 4, 2006

Taxes. Health care. If it ain't good for ya, its costing us all. Smoking and alcohol are in this category too.

My brother-in-law was laid up for three months in traction from skiing in Banff, but I wouldn't criminalize his behaviour because it costs the health care system money.

He was doing an activity that makes him a healthier person. Lighting up a joint isn't making you healthier, no matter how much BS you believe in about the drug.

GostHacked · May 4, 2006

Taxes. Health care. If it ain't good for ya, its costing us all. Smoking and alcohol are in this category too.

My brother-in-law was laid up for three months in traction from skiing in Banff, but I wouldn't criminalize his behaviour because it costs the health care system money.

He was doing an activity that makes him a healthier person. Lighting up a joint isn't making you healthier, no matter how much BS you believe in about the drug.

No but skiing is not exactly a non-risk sport. You can end up like a quad in a wheelchair for the rest of your life, and all that can happen in mere seconds. Or die. So can skiing make you healthy? Sure can. It can also kill you.

Granted I cant say the same for weed that it makes you healthier, but in some cases like AIDS patients it had benefited them greatly. For one AIDS seems to kill ones appetite. Weed, yes gives you the munchies, but also the drive TO eat. In an AIDS patient it can make a huge difference for they are putting nutrition back into their bodies. More food the better chance the body has of fighting the ailment.

So I guess it can go both ways.

ALSO Fox said he would not sign the bill after the US expressed concerns about it. Another victory for TEAM AMERICA !!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12598317/

BubberMiley · May 4, 2006

If you're so concerned about people's health, maybe we should criminalize hydrogenated goo like Cheez Whiz.

Edited August 27, 2010 by BubberMiley

crazymf · May 4, 2006

You argument is so rambling and incoherent, I'd suspect you've been drinking to "escape reality."

So I guess I'm not qualified to be here with the likes of you. :lol:

Newsflash!!!!!

Pull your head out of your (orifice of your choice).

I said what I had to say and if you merely want to get on my case because of my opinion, move along.

crazymf · May 4, 2006

I've smoked weed every day for years and years and years and am fit as a fiddle.

Oh, I see. You should have said that in the first place. You have a vested interest...

crazymf · May 4, 2006

Dear crazymf,
Oh, and flea, to further your train of thought...
What would happen if the cops actually catch all the drug dealers?

They'd have a whole bunch of unhappy addicts on their hands and the country may collapse in chaos.

No, some addict's lives may collapse into chaos (well, even further into chaos), but try to criminalize booze and see what happens.
It is my view that all natural plants should be legal (with accompanying laws of standards), while refining them should be 'severely illegal'. The poppy, the mushroom and the weed all occur naturally (or by God's will, if that is your bent), so banning (or rendering 'illegal') a part of nature seems a bit silly. Like demanding all the 'phallus plants' be hidden from sight, or covered appropriately.

It is a question of "Use versus Abuse", because they are already so well established, it has long been proven that most people can use some intoxicants responsibly. I think the line can be drawn at the refineries.

...unless you are visioning a perpetual motion machine of more cops chasing more dealers and so on.....
I read a great 'comic book' by some weird 'adult' artist, where that notion was given a couple of pages...'robot cops' that did such a good job they had to produce 'robot robbers' to keep them from harrassing everyone.

T,

In my rambling and incoherant post(according to Bubber Miley), the point I was getting to is that legalizing drugs will even further enhance a lifestyle of younger people. It will perpetuate the habits as I believe it's generally accepted that kids do what they see their parents do. While you state that most people use responsibly, that bar will be raised as to what is acceptable in Mexico. Who will teach the kids what is responsible? Dope has been around and generally accepted forever and it's not going to stop. I don't believe that's the threat. Coke, heroin and whatever chemical they come up with next will all be legal in personal amounts from what I understand, and THAT is plain wrong.

BubberMiley · May 4, 2006

My point was that you weren't very coherent in your posts. I have no problem with you expressing your opinion--that's what we're all here for--but you weren't expressing it so that I understood what you were trying to say.

For example:

Why can't people just go get pissed if they want out of reality??
1. Perhaps because drugs are easier to get for minors? There's a real reason for decriminalizing illicit drugs.

Criminalization creates a black market that, among many other negative things, creates an economy that is unregulated, guaranteeing access to minors. So are you being sarcastic here or what? If so, I would suggest using one of the wide assortment of clever emoticons at our disposal because, based on what you wrote, I'm still not sure what you meant.

And in this case:

With all the illegals crossing the border into the USA, the lightheaded Mexican will infiltrate into American society and pressure an already losing battle in the wrong direction.

You're saying Mexico shouldn't create rational laws because then the Americans might? Please explain.

And then you say:

What would happen if the cops actually catch all the drug dealers?
They'd have a whole bunch of unhappy addicts on their hands and the country may collapse in chaos.

...unless you are visioning a perpetual motion machine of more cops chasing more dealers and so on.....

Is this an argument in favour of decriminalization? It seems like it to me. That's what I meant when I said incoherent. I just don't know where you're coming from.

Black Dog · May 4, 2006

With all the illegals crossing the border into the USA, the lightheaded Mexican will infiltrate into American society and pressure an already losing battle in the wrong direction.

That's hilarious! Straight out of early racial-tinged prohibition rhetoric. A "brown peril" of stoned Mexicans flooding the border to take our jobs and rape our white women. Svae us from the scourge of the demon weed! :lol:

In my rambling and incoherant post(according to Bubber Miley), the point I was getting to is that legalizing drugs will even further enhance a lifestyle of younger people. It will perpetuate the habits as I believe it's generally accepted that kids do what they see their parents do. While you state that most people use responsibly, that bar will be raised as to what is acceptable in Mexico. Who will teach the kids what is responsible? Dope has been around and generally accepted forever and it's not going to stop. I don't believe that's the threat. Coke, heroin and whatever chemical they come up with next will all be legal in personal amounts from what I understand, and THAT is plain wrong.

So it's the government's job to enforce personal responsibility? Huh?

crazymf · May 4, 2006

My point was that you weren't very coherent in your posts. I have no problem with you expressing your opinion--that's what we're all here for--but you weren't expressing it so that I understood what you were trying to say.
For example:

Why can't people just go get pissed if they want out of reality??

1. Perhaps because drugs are easier to get for minors? There's a real reason for decriminalizing illicit drugs.

Criminalization creates a black market that, among many other negative things, creates an economy that is unregulated, guaranteeing access to minors. So are you being sarcastic here or what? If so, I would suggest using one of the wide assortment of clever emoticons at our disposal because, based on what you wrote, I'm still not sure what you meant.

***Yes, I was being sarcastic. Alcohol is harder for youngsters to get than dope(generalization word for illegal drugs). Legalizing possession alone doesn't regulate anything nor does it control the supply. Therefore, I believe not only will drugs become easier to get for children, but with no penalty for having them, more kids will fall into the habit. I think it's a slippery slope.**

And in this case:

With all the illegals crossing the border into the USA, the lightheaded Mexican will infiltrate into American society and pressure an already losing battle in the wrong direction.

You're saying Mexico shouldn't create rational laws because then the Americans might? Please explain.

**Ok, we disagree on your statement before I even can rebutt. The law Mexico is proposing is not rational to me, but one of desperation of a losing battle and tight budget.**

And then you say:

What would happen if the cops actually catch all the drug dealers?
They'd have a whole bunch of unhappy addicts on their hands and the country may collapse in chaos.

...unless you are visioning a perpetual motion machine of more cops chasing more dealers and so on.....

Is this an argument in favour of decriminalization? It seems like it to me. That's what I meant when I said incoherent. I just don't know where you're coming from.

**It's just a possible fantasy scenario, small as the chance is, that if the police actually do what the law is meant for, and squelch the supply, then the demand, which will have increased, will become unbearable, causing general unrest. The druggies won't have any drugs and will get pissed off at the government for taking them away. A stretch, granted, but possible.**

No truth · May 4, 2006

Forgive me for bringing up history, but prohibition didn't work for booze, and it won't work for anything else, either. People will always get what they want, making it illegal just raises the price. Legalize it, tax it and stop putting people in jail for their "entrepreneurial spirit".

As to the Mexican law, this was likely just a way for Mexico to hit the U.S. up for more money so Fox can afford more blow and hookers.

crazymf · May 4, 2006

Am I missing some kind of point here??????

I'm getting a tune from some of you guys that sounds an awful lot like 'if you can't beat em, join em?'.

Never have I heard that moderate use of heroin or ecstacy or crystal meth or even good old acid is good for you. Can someone try to enlighten me???

I'm not argueing the old thing about dope leading to harder drugs here either. Mexico is basically decriminalizing personal amounts of most hard chemical type drugs. Most of them are devastatingly addictive and damaging to your body.

WOOHOO!!! Free for all in Mexico!! This can't be good IMO no matter how you cut it.

Black Dog · May 4, 2006

Never have I heard that moderate use of heroin or ecstacy or crystal meth or even good old acid is good for you. Can someone try to enlighten me???

Why should whether or not something is "good for you" determine wheter or not you get thrown in the clink for doing it? Obviously eating junk food is bad for you, but no one is seriously considering criminalizing it (I know it's an imperfect anaolgy, but the point is clear).

crazymf · May 4, 2006

Never have I heard that moderate use of heroin or ecstacy or crystal meth or even good old acid is good for you. Can someone try to enlighten me???

Why should whether or not something is "good for you" determine wheter or not you get thrown in the clink for doing it? Obviously eating junk food is bad for you, but no one is seriously considering criminalizing it (I know it's an imperfect anaolgy, but the point is clear).

That's not the point.

I'm hearing people state that most people can use drugs responsibly. I question that. Not dope, but the hard drugs.

theloniusfleabag · May 5, 2006

Dear crazymf,

I'm getting a tune from some of you guys that sounds an awful lot like 'if you can't beat em, join em?'.

I agree that this is not a good argument, and not one I try to put across, though it may sound a bit like that. However, 'legalization' implies control, while 'underground black market' means no control. I personally mean it to cover plants, and not refined product.

I'm hearing people state that most people can use drugs responsibly. I question that. Not dope, but the hard drugs.

I had said 'most people can use some drugs', not all people, of course, and not all drugs. I read a book some time ago called 'Drug, Set and Setting", a study done on 'drug users' of every kind. Yes, there was someone who did heroin once a year, as a treat. Not for me thanks.