Mexico adopts new drug policy

[Riverwind]

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???

Ecstasy has valid psychiatric uses in the 70s but was banned as soon as the US gov't discovered people would use it recreational purposes. Heroin/morphine have legitimate uses a painkillers. I agree that crystal meth is friggin dangerous and, like LSD, can cause permanent brain damage.

[No truth]

Reality is for people who can't face drugs.

Given the amount of kids on Ritalin and Welbutrin for ADHD, a disease that according to the AMA doesn't exist (and which, incidentally, I was diagnosed with and medicated for), how can our society get so cranked up on their anti-drug high-horse when they're prescribing Valium to five year-olds? Or is it only the drugs marketed by large corporations that are good for you? What would easily available marijuana do to the sales of Paxil?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Riverwind,

Ecstasy has valid psychiatric uses in the 70s

'E', or MDMA, never had 'valid uses'.

[GostHacked]

Dear Riverwind,

Ecstasy has valid psychiatric uses in the 70s

'E', or MDMA, never had 'valid uses'.

You realize E MDMA was prescribed as an anti depressant. It did, to some therapists, have valid use.

http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/public...mdma/index.html

[crazymf]

Interesting thread twist. From Mexico to our apparent misuse of prescription drugs on our own children by our federally certified drug dealers (doctors). I frankly don't see the comparison, but whatever.

Come clean guys, of everyone here who condones the Mexican drug law, who uses illegal drugs themselves?

I oppose the idea, but then again I don't use them. Could the use of illicit drugs perhaps change your unbiased perspective regarding the issue? I think so, just as I am biased against any legalization.

[Black Dog]

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

I don't think it matters. The vast majority of problems stemming from drug abuse stems from the fact we treat it as a criminal matter and a moral failure. This view does nothing to help people manage or kick the addiction. I read recently of a pilot project (was it in Vancouver? the Netherlands?) where the government provided heroin addicts with small amounts of heroin. As a resuly, many junkies were able to get jobs and hold down a normal life because they were able to manage their addiction instead of having to scramble and steal for each fix.

The point is yeah, some people will end up destroying their lives as a result of drug use. But prohibition hasn't stopped that from happening: if anything its made matters worse. It's damn difficult to convince people to make the right choice all the time, but we can do a better job of helping people deal with the consequences of their choices as oppossed to throwing them in jail or into the gutter. You might dismiss it as "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" but the fact is, when a policy fails to deliver any of the changes it promised, there's nothing wrong with rethinking that policy. Do do otherwise would be foolish.

I oppose the idea, but then again I don't use them. Could the use of illicit drugs perhaps change your unbiased perspective regarding the issue? I think so, just as I am biased against any legalization.

Well you think? Obviously a person will take a certain position if they have a vested interest in the issue. I mean, most people oppossed to gun control are gun owners. That doesn't mean their views should be discounted: if anthing at least they have experience with the subject at hand.

[crazymf]

BD, that's a lovely fantasy, but it puts the onus (spelling?) on the individual. Well, if that individual is a poor uneducated dirt farmer type from nowhereville, Mexico, what do you think is going to happen? I think he's going to fall into the black hole of addiction at a young age.

No, I think the answer is a long term one of education in the schools. We have one in Alberta called the 'DARE' program. Both my kids took it as gospel and barring any future problems, both are drug and smoke free at 17 and 18 years old.

If the kids see their parents use drugs, what's to stop them from using? Back 30 or even 40 years ago, everyone smoked. Why? The answer was simple, 'because everybody does it'.

As far as being biased, I don't use drugs and can't see how a stupid law in Mexico can affect me. I would be all in favor of it if I was a dopehead such as Bubber as I could see my next Mexican vaction being a GREAT time.

[Drea]

BD, that's a lovely fantasy, but it puts the onus (spelling?) on the individual. Well, if that individual is a poor uneducated dirt farmer type from nowhereville, Mexico, what do you think is going to happen? I think he's going to fall into the black hole of addiction at a young age.

No, I think the answer is a long term one of education in the schools. We have one in Alberta called the 'DARE' program. Both my kids took it as gospel and barring any future problems, both are drug and smoke free at 17 and 18 years old.

DARE is not only in Alberta... my son went through the program in grade 5 (we live in BC)

If the kids see their parents use drugs, what's to stop them from using? Back 30 or even 40 years ago, everyone smoked. Why? The answer was simple, 'because everybody does it'.

DON'T do drugs or drink in FRONT of your children!

As far as being biased, I don't use drugs and can't see how a stupid law in Mexico can affect me. I would be all in favor of it if I was a dopehead such as Bubber as I could see my next Mexican vaction being a GREAT time.

Bubber has said he smokes weed. We can get that here in Canada no problem, no need to go to Mexico for it.

[BubberMiley]

I wouldn't touch Mexican ditchweed anyway. We have the finest hydroponic grow-ops in the world in this country, and supply far outstrips demand so prices are down, down, down.

[crazymf]

.....oh man. This country is down the toilet.

Don't bother responding. It's just my humble opinion.

[BubberMiley]

As far as being biased, I don't use drugs and can't see how a stupid law in Mexico can affect me.

So you would then admit that decriminalization shouldn't have any effect on demand?

[crazymf]

As far as being biased, I don't use drugs and can't see how a stupid law in Mexico can affect me.

So you would then admit that decriminalization shouldn't have any effect on demand?

No, I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that because I don't use, I'm biased against the law and because you are a dopehead, you are probably in favor of it. However, because you are the one with the altered mind, I can probably give a less biased opinion than you.

...easy now. Poking fun at you only.

[BubberMiley]

Actually I'm only reluctantly in favour of decriminalization or legalization. I don't worry about getting busted, and good-quality supply is always there these days. I'm more worried that legalization might result in government-grown ditchweed at high prices. I'm prepared to leave well enough alone, but I regret the fact that criminalization results in stronger organized crime and drugs for sale in our schools.

But I'm also aware of the complete lack of common sense in the present law, and will always gladly point that out to people.

[geoffrey]

How would decrim take drugs out of schools?

That's a huge market and someone will supply it illegally with home-grown illegal pot.

Nothing will change, as many kids' lives will be destroyed and people will still spend their time smoking up, getting fat (those munchies), being lazy and being a burden on the rest of us forever.

That's like saying making alcohol legal stopped teenagers from drinking. Uh huh... it was alot harder for teenagers to get alcohol when prohibition was around, ma or pa needed to be in touch with a moonshine maker or a mob guy to get it. It wasn't as simply as calling up the friend's older sibling to go buy for you at the corner store. It is so unbelievably easy to get alcohol, I'm only a few years out of high school and I had no problem whatsoever getting alcohol from grade 10 on. There will be absolutely no difference with weed.

I honestly don't see how anyone can use that as a reason for decrim, its your weakest position because its founded completely on falsehoods.

And at least the mobsters had class. Look at those thugs and bums at the c-train stations selling pot. Such an eyesore to society, they have no place here. Why would they leave if the government sold us legal pot? They'd just sell cheaper and still have the market.

[BubberMiley]

You don't accept that the whole black market for drugs was basically founded upon the criminalization of weed? If it were legal to grow two or three plants in your basement, the bottom would fall out of that black market because no one would pay $10 a gram for what is in reality a weed.

Of course, my position can never be proven because too much money is tied up in the black market, and we will never see decriminalization in our lifetime. I think the new election finance laws were the nail in the coffin for that one.

BTW, I'm a lean, mean 6'2" and 175 pounds and nearly 50 years old. That's because I love riding singletrack high.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear geoffrey,

That's a huge market and someone will supply it illegally with home-grown illegal pot

That is the way it is now. If people like Bubber Miley like pot so much, they would wish for no change in the system. Pot is cheap, plentiful and readily available.

De-criminalization is a mere half-measure, only addressing the cost on the judicial system (for simple possession) of a relatively harmless drug. Legalization is the way to go, only then can full power be brought to bear against grow-ops and illegal dealing.

[Black Dog]

BD, that's a lovely fantasy, but it puts the onus (spelling?) on the individual. Well, if that individual is a poor uneducated dirt farmer type from nowhereville, Mexico, what do you think is going to happen? I think he's going to fall into the black hole of addiction at a young age.

I'm not sure how big a problem smack is in rural, poverty stricken areas. Most illicit drugs are consumed by North American urbanites. But I see your point. Fact is, though, you can't save every soul.

No, I think the answer is a long term one of education in the schools. We have one in Alberta called the 'DARE' program. Both my kids took it as gospel and barring any future problems, both are drug and smoke free at 17 and 18 years old.

Education is great, but I'm not sure how effective the "Just Say No" type stuff is. Take DARE for example: numerous studies have shown children who went through DARE are no more likely to "say no" as adolescents than their uninstructed counterparts. That could be because of the content of the program itself, or it could just be that scare tactics don't work. I'd wager your kids are responding more to the example you set and the values you instilled.

How would decrim take drugs out of schools?

That's a huge market and someone will supply it illegally with home-grown illegal pot.

I think the size of the market is over estimated. School kids, generally, don't have a whole lot of money to throw around.

That's like saying making alcohol legal stopped teenagers from drinking. Uh huh... it was alot harder for teenagers to get alcohol when prohibition was around, ma or pa needed to be in touch with a moonshine maker or a mob guy to get it. It wasn't as simply as calling up the friend's older sibling to go buy for you at the corner store. It is so unbelievably easy to get alcohol, I'm only a few years out of high school and I had no problem whatsoever getting alcohol from grade 10 on. There will be absolutely no difference with weed.

It was also a lot harder for me to get booze before Klein privatized liquor.

What makes you think weed is hard to get now, anyway? I think the core problem here is that you're saying prohibition is the only way to stop kids from using drugs. That's clearly not the case and frankly, clinging to the illusion it does work is a failure of imagination. There's no reason why increased anti-drug education and decriminalization or even legalization can't be compatible.

And at least the mobsters had class. Look at those thugs and bums at the c-train stations selling pot. Such an eyesore to society, they have no place here. Why would they leave if the government sold us legal pot? They'd just sell cheaper and still have the market.

You're comparing well-dressed murderers and goons with some baggy-trou'd kid selling dimebags and coming out on side of the former? Dude: wtf? As to the question of why they would quit selling if weed were legal, well, that's up to the market place. If I could grow my own, or better yet, head down to the farmer's market and buy a bundle of high quality hydro, why would I need the guy selling skunk on the subway?

[geoffrey]

I think the size of the market is over estimated. School kids, generally, don't have a whole lot of money to throw around.

Depends if you come from a poor or richer area. I'm in a fairly affluent part of Calgary and my old high school, though it was 99.9% white kids with household incomes over $150k a year, had a massive pot and cocaine problem. You'd never know this, it was just a dark side to the school. But when the police cracked down, I think the estimate was nearly around a million dollars in drug trade in my school over the year. This was a public high school, not some rich private school either.

Kids have tons of money to blow on drugs. If you go to a poor area, they steal to get their fixes. In rich areas, they ask mom and dad.

The money is there, the market is very strong. When one high school with 1500 kids can produce a million dollars in drug trade, imagine throughout all the high schools in the city?

There's no reason why increased anti-drug education and decriminalization or even legalization can't be compatible.

Well its definitely sending a mixed message. Oh ya little Billy, its completely legal and fine by societies standards, but you shouldn't do it!!

You're comparing well-dressed murderers and goons with some baggy-trou'd kid selling dimebags and coming out on side of the former? Dude: wtf? As to the question of why they would quit selling if weed were legal, well, that's up to the market place. If I could grow my own, or better yet, head down to the farmer's market and buy a bundle of high quality hydro, why would I need the guy selling skunk on the subway?

It's not people like you that fund those guys' operations, its the poor street folk that can't afford it to begin with.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear geoffrey,

Well its definitely sending a mixed message. Oh ya little Billy, its completely legal and fine by societies standards, but you shouldn't do it!!

They send out this message now for alcohol and sex.

[BubberMiley]

Depends if you come from a poor or richer area. I'm in a fairly affluent part of Calgary and my old high school, though it was 99.9% white kids with household incomes over $150k a year, had a massive pot and cocaine problem.

I'm sure it still has a massive pot and coke "problem," even after the police crackdown (though I think categorizing innocuous pot with hazardous coke like this is really part of the problem).

But given that those drugs were virtually non-existent in our society before criminalization, I'm at a loss as to why you think the legal status quo might one day suddenly solve the "problem."

[BubberMiley]

Dear geoffrey,

Well its definitely sending a mixed message. Oh ya little Billy, its completely legal and fine by societies standards, but you shouldn't do it!!

They send out this message now for alcohol and sex.

They send out that message for glue too and I think the message received is "that stuff is too dorky to bother with; it isn't even illegal.

[geoffrey]

Dear geoffrey,

Well its definitely sending a mixed message. Oh ya little Billy, its completely legal and fine by societies standards, but you shouldn't do it!!

They send out this message now for alcohol and sex.

Not so much with sex these days with how liberalised our schools are in that department, alcohol yes.

More education needs to be given on the consequences of excess consumption.

[BubberMiley]

More education needs to be given on the consequences of excess consumption.

I can educate you! The consequences of excess consumption of weed are a lovely night's sleep with no hangover in the morning.

[Black Dog]

Well its definitely sending a mixed message. Oh ya little Billy, its completely legal and fine by societies standards, but you shouldn't do it!!

You're mistaking permission with approval. To give an individual the freedom to engage in certain behaviours is not to sanction the behaviour: it only acknowledges the soverignty of the individual.

As for whether that will have an affect on kids using drugs, I highly doubt it.

It's not people like you that fund those guys' operations, its the poor street folk that can't afford it to begin with.

So if they can't afford it to begin wih, how does our hypothetical dealer stay in business?

More education needs to be given on the consequences of excess consumption.

Doe sthat just aply to drugs? or does it also apply to buying crap, watching too much TV etc.?

[geoffrey]

You're mistaking permission with approval. To give an individual the freedom to engage in certain behaviours is not to sanction the behaviour: it only acknowledges the soverignty of the individual.

As for whether that will have an affect on kids using drugs, I highly doubt it.

Then why not play that card with things like speeding? Are you telling me people wouldn't drive faster if it wasn't illegal to do so? Permission can be approval.

So if they can't afford it to begin wih, how does our hypothetical dealer stay in business?

Well instead of spending it on things like clothing for their kids, a house, food... they spend it on drugs. Or, they sell themselves for a few bucks or just payment in drugs...

I have many friends that the first thing they do with their paycheque is go by a big bag of weed. Then they bitch when they are broke for the next two weeks, or can't meet rent payments and ask me to help 'em out (which I wouldn't), before they go do it again the next week. And the next week. And the next week. Big sign of addiction actually.

Same reality behind gambling addictions, same symptoms.

Doe sthat just aply to drugs? or does it also apply to buying crap, watching too much TV etc.?

Watching too much TV isn't inherently bad, not getting enough physical activity is bad. If you are running marathons a day, sitting in front of the TV for a couple hours at night isn't going to cost society as a whole. Now if all you do is sit in front of the TV, then ya, we do need to educate people not to be so burdensome.

Buying crap doesn't sound too smart, what kind of crap are you refering too? What's wrong with buying stuff if you need it? Depends on the situation and what 'crap' is.