[TheWOAT]

MEXICO CITY - Mexico’s Congress approved a bill Friday decriminalizing possession of small amounts of marijuana, ecstasy, cocaine and heroin for personal use — a measure sure to raise questions in Washington about Mexico’s commitment to the war on drugs.

The only step remaining was the signature of the president, whose office indicated he would sign it.

Mexican officials hope the law will help police focus on large-scale trafficking operations, rather than minor drug busts. The bill also stiffens penalties for trafficking and possession of drugs — even small quantities — by government employees or near schools, and maintains criminal penalties for drug sales.

Quite a shocker. I think poverty and drugs is not a good mix. Also the reasons behind the legalization that it will help them "focus on large-scale trafficking operations" seemed ass backwards. It all seems like 'Prevent Defense' (NFL reference), allowing the 'small stuff' and preventing the larger plays/actions... and we all know how well 'Prevent defense' works in the NFL.

[gradient]

the users aren't the problem in the drug trade - it's the suppliers. It's not like the mainstream US version of the war on drugs has reaped significant dividends.

[Doofy]

The UK government has been having similar ideas for quite some time now.

Here's the results:

[gradient]

Originally Posted by Doofy

The UK government has been having similar ideas for quite some time now.

Here's the results:

That's nice and sensational but not much else.... if you've got enough cash you can get junk in pretty well any country in the world regardless of the laws. Stiff penalties for street level users just does not solve the problem, especially if we're talking about heroin - one of the most addictive drugs. Once you're hooked on heroin you don't care about the penalties of getting caught - the only solution is getting the stuff off the streets and rehabilitating the addicts.

[abe]

Originally Posted by TheWOAT

Quite a shocker. I think poverty and drugs is not a good mix. Also the reasons behind the legalization that it will help them "focus on large-scale trafficking operations" seemed ass backwards. It all seems like 'Prevent Defense' (NFL reference), allowing the 'small stuff' and preventing the larger plays/actions... and we all know how well 'Prevent defense' works in the NFL.

WHAT A BRILLIANT MOVE BY THE MEXICANS!

Americans will FLOCK to Mexico and bring their DOLLARS! It will affect ANY immigration-border-wall-security plans and throws the spotlight on our law enforcement policies and might significantly influence the war on drugs.

This will be HUGE!

Not saying I'm in favor of it, but it is a bold and inspired move that should benefit THEM and force US to adapt.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by gradient

That's nice and sensational but not much else.... if you've got enough cash you can get junk in pretty well any country in the world regardless of the laws. Stiff penalties for street level users just does not solve the problem, especially if we're talking about heroin - one of the most addictive drugs. Once you're hooked on heroin you don't care about the penalties of getting caught - the only solution is getting the stuff off the streets and rehabilitating the addicts.

How do you get the stuff off the streets when you've effectively said that low-level users are OK using it?

If you prosecute all the low level users, the dealers' incomes dry up. Once their incomes dry up, they'll stop dealing. Simple as that.

[abe]

Originally Posted by Doofy

How do you get the stuff off the streets when you've effectively said that low-level users are OK using it?

I'm getting the feeling gradient might be seriously damaged, intellectually.

[moodymonster]

how does Holland's addiction rates compare to other countries with more stringent drug laws?

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Doofy

How do you get the stuff off the streets when you've effectively said that low-level users are OK using it?

If you prosecute all the low level users, the dealers' incomes dry up. Once their incomes dry up, they'll stop dealing. Simple as that.

Well, MY problem is with that, being a drug-user is not a crime…it's a "sin". It should in NO way be illegal. Who the hell is the government to tell us that we are not allowed to do stupid things to ourselves? Besides that, treating drug use as a crime has been a DISMAL failure in fixing the overall problem. All it does is fill the prisons full of people whose only crime is self-destructive stupidity (and who don't feel they belong there), and there they are subjected to violence, crime, rape and drugs. What kind of effect do you think living in an environment like this has on the kind of sensitive person who allows themselves to get into drugs in the first place?

[gradient]

Originally Posted by abe

I'm getting the feeling gradient might be seriously damaged, intellectually.

I love how you find pleasure in flinging insults without even taking on the argument. Very intellectual.

[gradient]

Originally Posted by Doofy

How do you get the stuff off the streets when you've effectively said that low-level users are OK using it?

If you prosecute all the low level users, the dealers' incomes dry up. Once their incomes dry up, they'll stop dealing. Simple as that.

I'll clariffy the meat of my argument. The core of what I'm saying comes from the idea that being a user can't trully be considered immoral (I'm not going to bring "sins" into this) because it is damage done to ones self and harms noone else around you. If someone wants to fry their brain on crystal meth who are any of us to tell them that they aren't allowed? Really. It's the same as saying that noone is allowed to stare at a computer for hours or days on end because it destroys your social life and deprives you of exercise and sunshine - a very true point but absolutely an idividuals choice to make.

However traffickers and dealers are an entirely different issue. They can absolutely be said to be harming and killing others with their product and not uncommonly harm and kill people as a part of the distribution of their product. They can absolutely be punished severely the same way we would punish murderers and rapists.

There are many countries in the world were drug use has essentially been wiped out by punishing the user severely, but they are nearly (or absolutely) totalitarian regimes that I, for one, would never want to live under.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Doofy

If you prosecute all the low level users, the dealers' incomes dry up. Once their incomes dry up, they'll stop dealing. Simple as that.

Who's going to foot the bill to prosecute and incarcerate all these users?

Does simple mean snatching money from my pocket for ill conceived "social rehabilitation programs".

Mrs. Rand has hereby excommunicated you from the Libertarian party. You can drop your membership card in the post for a full refund plus interest.

[Doofy]

Really, I don't really care about the druggies. If they want to go kill themselves, fine. But they'd better not be (1) driving on any road that I'm on, (2) having medical treatment paid for by my tax dollar, (3) stealing from me to feed their monster and (4) annoying me in any other way at all.

In the meantime, sticking a junkie in prison for three months may not be a bad thing for them. Let's face it, all the alternatives (such as weaning off via prescription meth) don't work.

Originally Posted by subego

Does simple mean snatching money from my pocket for ill conceived "social rehabilitation programs".

Mrs. Rand has hereby excommunicated you from the Libertarian party. You can drop your membership card in the post for a full refund plus interest.

Of course, in the ideal society the dealers' incomes would dry up because all the junkies breaking into houses to feed their habit would be dead - shot by the homeowner exercising his "my house, my rules" rights.

[abe]

Originally Posted by smacintush

Well, MY problem is with that, being a drug-user is not a crime…it's a "sin". It should in NO way be illegal. Who the hell is the government to tell us that we are not allowed to do stupid things to ourselves? Besides that, treating drug use as a crime has been a DISMAL failure in fixing the overall problem. All it does is fill the prisons full of people whose only crime is self-destructive stupidity (and who don't feel they belong there), and there they are subjected to violence, crime, rape and drugs. What kind of effect do you think living in an environment like this has on the kind of sensitive person who allows themselves to get into drugs in the first place?

Hmmm...

Let's see.

The government is supposed to do what's in the best interests of the public and protect the nation and so they take steps to prevent millions of pleasure seeking people of average intelligence from being able to impair their functioning and judgment with pleasurable mind altering substances which are difficult to detect beforehand and which if detected after some terrible thing had happened due to drug use could be a matter of too little, too late after the fact.

Millions of American workers making mistakes in manufacturing. Leading to the generalization that American manufacturing is poor quality and better quality can be had by buying foreign made products.

Millions of first responders, police, firemen, paramedics, emergency room personnel all getting high when THEY think it's ok. "I can do my job better while I'm HIGH than I can when I'm straight," they'd say.

Millions of drivers who can't be arrested for carrying or using or being actually intoxicated who THINK they are ok to drive but whose faulty judgment increases traffic deaths.

Hundreds of thousands of young athletes believe it's ok to use any steroids they want so they can get stronger or faster no matter how much it forces other 'clean' athletes to have to follow suit against their will, just so they can remain competitive and no matter how much it destroys their bodies. "It's MY BODY, I should be able to do whatever I want with it," they'd say.

If you agree that speed limits are the Gov't's right to impose and that DUI laws are a good idea, then you can't deny the Government's right to tell people to just say NO!

[abe]

Originally Posted by gradient

I'll clariffy the meat of my argument. The core of what I'm saying comes from the idea that being a user can't trully be considered immoral (I'm not going to bring "sins" into this) because it is damage done to ones self and harms noone else around you. If someone wants to fry their brain on crystal meth who are any of us to tell them that they aren't allowed? Really. It's the same as saying that noone is allowed to stare at a computer for hours or days on end because it destroys your social life and deprives you of exercise and sunshine - a very true point but absolutely an idividuals choice to make.

However traffickers and dealers are an entirely different issue. They can absolutely be said to be harming and killing others with their product and not uncommonly harm and kill people as a part of the distribution of their product. They can absolutely be punished severely the same way we would punish murderers and rapists.

There are many countries in the world were drug use has essentially been wiped out by punishing the user severely, but they are nearly (or absolutely) totalitarian regimes that I, for one, would never want to live under.

I'll go along with you under these conditions.

That, while high, the users must remain isolated from the rest of society to prevent their doing something which DOES all too often harm others.

THEN, that the users be assessed a higher health insurance rate at work to cover the number of extra hospital/doctor visits that stem from drug use and that the person agree to a lower rate of pay than their co-workers, on the basis that they will not be as productive or that the quality of their work will suffer and/or that they will have more sick days.

And that they be taxed a small amount which would go toward an education campaign directed at women which would make fun of them for getting involved with druggy losers and to caution them against the negative effects drugs play in raising a happy healthy family. And the campaign would teach that if a woman gets involved with someone who does drugs then she's a loser and her children will be losers, all their lives.

Under those conditions I'd say, legalize ALL drugs. EVERY drug.

Today.

Cheers!

*clink*

[subego]

Originally Posted by abe

If you agree that speed limits are the Gov't's right to impose and that DUI laws are a good idea, then you can't deny the Government's right to tell people to just say NO!

How does the government regulating the privilege of driving extend to them the right to determine what I put in my body in the confines of my home or a legally regulated substance abuse establishment (a.k.a. a bar)?

[abe]

Originally Posted by subego

How does the government regulating the privilege of driving extend to them the right to determine what I put in my body in the confines of my home or a legally regulated substance abuse establishment (a.k.a. a bar)?

Because it's not in the nation's best interest to have everyone running around high. It's bad enough now as it is without giving everyone the green light.

We have a tradition of alcoholic beverage consumption which existed before the first settlers came here and even when we tried to outlaw it we couldn't. Ok. Fine. But now that we have one legal intoxicant do we really need another?

I could argue the other side as well, but I won't.

I AM, however, interested in seeing how this mexican legalization shakes out.

[Chuckit]

If the people's liberty is not in the nation's interest, it sounds like the nation has become a problem itself. The nation exists for no other reason than for its people, not vice-versa.

[abe]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

If the people's liberty is not in the nation's interest, it sounds like the nation has become a problem itself. The nation exists for no other reason than for its people, not vice-versa.

I'm defining the nation as the "many" and comparing the well being of the many to the hedonistic desires of the few.

[subego]

Originally Posted by abe

Because it's not in the nation's best interest to have everyone running around high. It's bad enough now as it is without giving everyone the green light.

You could make this case for fast food too, and that it's far more damaging to the nation than something innocuous like marijuana.

Though Mary Jane is certainly a gateway drug to fast food.

[abe]

Originally Posted by subego

You could make this case for fast food too, and that it's far more damaging to the nation than something innocuous like marijuana.

Though Mary Jane is certainly a gateway drug to fast food.

That's the second time tonite you've made me smile. You might want to stop that.

My Drill Sergeant oft said, 'laughin leads to liking and liking leads to lovin and lovin leads to ****in...and are you trying to **** me???!!!???"

But seriously, your love of pot clouds your judgment of it. It's impossible for you to be objective on the subject. OF COURSE you want to have people believe it's harmless and without significant negative side effects.

There are threads on the topic of, "drugs or no drugs," "pot or no pot." I don't wanna reinvent the wheel.

And, speaking of fast food, a woman has come out to dispel as "junk science" the findings that supposedly came from the experiment documented in the film, "SUPERSIZE ME."

She says you can eat regularly at McDonalds and not get sick. And some people might even lose weight and remain healthy.

But I prefer the story of the film. It just makes more sense to me and it's more satisfying to stick with this story.

Fast food is bad for ya. If you eat a steady diet of the stuff you'll gain a ton and get sick to boot! That stuff is a killer!

Yeah. Just typing that out felt good. Even though it's slightly inaccurate and doesn't tell the whole story or provide any of the details, I like that story so I'm stickin to it.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by abe

I'm defining the nation as the "many" and comparing the well being of the many to the hedonistic desires of the few.

You are defining the tyranny of the majority. It doesn't sound like a "the land of the free".

[abe]

Originally Posted by TETENAL

You are defining the tyranny of the majority. It doesn't sound like a "the land of the free".

If you were French I'd just substitute the word, "MOB" where I referred to "the many."

And knowing how much the French love mobs and riots and demonstrations I'd have you purring like a kitten.

Why don't you go drive to Stuttgart or something?

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by abe

Hmmm...

Millions of American workers making mistakes in manufacturing. Leading to the generalization that American manufacturing is poor quality and better quality can be had by buying foreign made products.

Millions of first responders, police, firemen, paramedics, emergency room personnel all getting high when THEY think it's ok. "I can do my job better while I'm HIGH than I can when I'm straight," they'd say.

Millions of drivers who can't be arrested for carrying or using or being actually intoxicated who THINK they are ok to drive but whose faulty judgment increases traffic deaths.

Hundreds of thousands of young athletes believe it's ok to use any steroids they want so they can get stronger or faster no matter how much it forces other 'clean' athletes to have to follow suit against their will, just so they can remain competitive and no matter how much it destroys their bodies. "It's MY BODY, I should be able to do whatever I want with it," they'd say.

If you agree that speed limits are the Gov't's right to impose and that DUI laws are a good idea, then you can't deny the Government's right to tell people to just say NO!

Not ONE of these things is in contradiction to my point.

It is illegal to drive drunk, yet if I get caught with a sealed bottle of booze in my car I will not be charged because booze is LEGAL. You can outlaw doing specific activities while under the influence of something without making the substance itself illegal.

Steroids are a good example. My wife and I caught "The man whose arms exploded"(a highly slanted show) on TLC the other night and got into this discussion. I have NO problem with the IFBB, NBA, NFL etc. banning the use of steroids within their organizations. That should be their choice, but ILLEGAL? This is in NO WAY justified. It is asinine to consider a person who is willing to take drugs that ONLY hurt themselves a criminal. In the case of steroids where they are taken to achieve a tangible effect (other than getting high I mean) a doctor administering and monitoring the dosage is perfectly acceptable IMO and in the long run would be healthier for the public because it would greatly reduce the black market problems and the health risks of self-administered misuse.

The people who want these things kept illegal are of a mindset that there should be a central authority deciding how we should behave. I thought in a free society we were supposed to decide for ourselves how we should behave.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Doofy

How do you get the stuff off the streets when you've effectively said that low-level users are OK using it?

If you prosecute all the low level users, the dealers' incomes dry up. Once their incomes dry up, they'll stop dealing. Simple as that.

There will always be new users. That is how drugs work. There will NEVER, not be a drug problem.

Drugs are just a token for the real thing. They are used to fill a void.

As long as that void exists, and as long as religion is frowned upon, drug usage will be prevalent.

Drugs are RARELY the problem. But a side effect of the problem.

Save the complaints for a party conversation.
The world is loaded, it's lit to pop and nobody is gonna stop...

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by abe

If you were French I'd just substitute the word, "MOB" where I referred to "the many."

So you are advocating mob-rule?

Stuttgart? Are you posts supposed to make sense somehow?

[pooka]

Originally Posted by TETENAL

Are you posts supposed to make sense somehow?

No.

[TheWOAT]

How do you win the war on drugs? Is it when there are absolutely no drugs to be had on the streets? When drugs are no longer profitable to large scale growers/traffickers?
Mexico seems to have given up the battle for recreational drug use to focus more on traffickers, but this same could have been done by just tellin police to not spend time on petty amounts. Either way, when the police are the traffickers, this new law wont change much.

[maxx9photo]

The more Americans getting "high" in mexico, the more Mexicans coming to America to take their job, Yeaahhh rOck on mExicans!!!!

[TheWOAT]

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...i182304D28.DTL

Mexican President Vicente Fox refused to sign a drug decriminalization bill Wednesday, hours after U.S. officials warned the plan could encourage "drug tourism."

When the U.S. says 'jump', Vicente Fox asks "How high?"...

[Chuckit]

Vicente Fox must be the only president ever to abandon a plan after discovering it might encourage tourism.

[gradient]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Vicente Fox must be the only president ever to abandon a plan after discovering it might encourage tourism.

LOL - I can only hope that Canada will step in to fill that void. Well, maybe after the next election.

[Spliffdaddy]

Then there would finally be a compelling reason to visit Canada.

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by TheWOAT

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...i182304D28.DTL


When the U.S. says 'jump', Vicente Fox asks "How high?"...

That's certainly unfortunate, for a second there I thought Mexico had finally grown a brain... too bad the big dumb bully across the border had to open his mouth. The bill wasn't that great anyways, it lacked several vital components to any viable drug-legalization policy: it didn't establish a method for companies to obtain licenses to sell these drugs, and it seems to have contained no provisions for a sensible drug-education policy.

[Chuckit]

Then again, Mexico is not that good on education or regulation for other legal drugs, either.