Mexico Legalizes Drugs

[Seachmall]

 

Anyone caught with drug amounts under the new personal-use limit will be encouraged to seek treatment, and for those caught a third time treatment is mandatory.

 

… “This is not legalization, this is regulating the issue and giving citizens greater legal certainty,” said Bernardo Espino del Castillo of the attorney general’s office.

 

...but the marijuana will continue to be classified as contraband (and therefore seized by police), and the user will be strongly urged to seek drug treatment (or coerced to do so if it is one’s third ‘offense.’)

- Norml (emphasis mine)

[Otter]

...still beats risking a prison sentence for a reefer, esse.

[Typhus]

Won't legalising mind-altering substances just send junkies even further into a life of complete worthlessness?

How can we trust people like them to use drugs responsibly when they've completely surrendered themselves to their addiction?

Edited August 21, 2009 by Typhus

[Seachmall]

Trolling? Please say you're trolling! Don't make me break out the list!!

[Typhus]

 

Trolling? Please say you're trolling! Don't make me break out the list!!

What in Gods name are you talking about?

Whatever "Trolling" is, I am not doing it. I just don't think some people can be treated for their problems. I think some people have a death wish, they're set on a path of self destruction that no one can stop.

These people, the type who steal from the elderly and sick to fund their lifestyle, may just feel that their poor choices are validated by this decision.

Do you see what I'm talking about?

Edited August 21, 2009 by Typhus

[Jean Capel]

Trolling? Please say you're trolling! Don't make me break out the list!!

Oh lord...not The List I lost sight in my right eye the last time that happened.

 

 

 

@Topic: I don't know how legalizing substances like Heroin (to an extent) makes any sense, but I'm all for the new rules on reefer!

[Seachmall]

 

Trolling? Please say you're trolling! Don't make me break out the list!!

What in Gods name are you talking about?

The list of people who regularly used mind-altering substances and still made successes of themselves.

I don't know how legalizing substances like Heroin (to an extent) makes any sense

Because people have a right to decide what they put into their bodies.

[Jean Capel]

 

I don't know how legalizing substances like Heroin (to an extent) makes any sense

Because people have a right to decide what they put into their bodies.

Not when it has negative effects on society as a whole. It contributes to broken windows theory for one, and also how many stoners have you heard of who go out and steal a television to get another blunt?

[Seachmall]

 

Not when it has negative effects on society as a whole., and also how many stoners have you heard of who go out and steal a television to get another blunt?

Not every heroine/opium user is/was a waster. Some contributed to society quite a bit, in fact some even founded the United States.

It contributes to broken windows theory for one

Stopped reading right there.

 

I'm not going to debate this, it's really just a difference of opinion. People should have a right to do whatever they want to their body, I'm sure emotions result in alot more crime than heroin but we don't outlaw them. If we could they would definitely benefit society, no more murder or mindless violence. If we had the technology, should we?

Edited August 21, 2009 by Seachmall

[Typhus]

The list of people who regularly used mind-altering substances and still made successes of themselves.

There is a big difference between people like Cobain and Kennedy and those who smoke a joint and pretend to be so enlightened on the issue of drugs. I can see past their lies, their hypocrisy, their childish excuses.

If you want to take responsibility? Fine, I respect that.

If you say: "Yes, I knew the risks, but I'll still do it regardless because I want to do as I please with my own life." Then yeah, that's good, in a way I admire that attitude.

But it's these weak minded simpletons, you must have met them.

You ask why they do it.

"Oh, peer pressure! Peer pressure!"

Will they quit?

"I want to! I want to! I would if I could!"

Maybe you should have your drugs taken away.

"Dude, that's like totally fascism man! It's my right! My right!"

I encounter these people so often. Blaming others for their failiures and then claiming to be merely enjoying the freedom to pollute their bodies.

Either do drugs like a man, admit it and have no delusions on the issue, or don't do them at all.

But don't look me in the eyes like an honest man and then bleat and moan about how you never had a choice, about how you are a product of a bad upbringing or a broken society.

We need honesty. That it all. Honesty.

[Jean Capel]

 

Not every heroine/opium user is/was a waster. Some contributed to society quite a bit,

Stopped reading right there. (Kidding)

 

 

 

Jest aside, the fact that some 200 some odd years ago one (or several) of the founders of the united states used heroin/opium is irrelevant. I'm not discussing the past, I'm discussing the present, how many heroin users do you see in modern society (I.E. anywhere you've actually lived/stayed for an extended period of time) that contribute something good to the place they live?* In my experience, the only thing addicts around here do is steal from Scam-Mart**, commit homicide, and resist arrest. But hey, that's just my experience, maybe you've met some rather progressive and diligent heroin addicts.

 

 

 

 

* I.E, holding a steady job, doing charity work/donating to a good cause, doing something that makes their own environment a little more positive, practically or aesthetically.

 

 

**Wal-Mart.

 

 

 

Edit: Didn't notice the 'I'm not going to debate my opinion' post, I'll leave this up anyway.

[Seachmall]

And outlawing drugs is the best route to honesty?

 

Maybe doing more to promote responsibility and self-confidence would have a greater impact.

 

@Jean Capel,

I'll be honest that I don't know if I know many heroin users, it's not a big talking point over here.

the fact that some 200 some odd years ago one (or several) of the founders of the united states used heroin/opium is irrelevant.

Not really, it shows that responsible drug use won't make you a waster, being a waster will. Typhus is right when he said it's about responsibility, I just disagree with his methods on achieving that goal.

 

 

'I'm not going to debate my opinion'

I say that a lot but I usually end up debating anyway, most of the time I say it to appear the bigger-man but in reality I'm not. I love a good banter Edited August 21, 2009 by Seachmall

[Typhus]

 

And outlawing drugs is the best route to honesty?

 

Maybe doing more to promote responsibility and self-confidence would have a greater impact.

I would hope so.

You can do drugs and still be a great, influential person. I mean, Adolf Hitler did cocaine and he conquered most of Europe. So anything's possible.

I just feel that this idea of passing on responsibility to another party is plain bullsh*t. Can't you admit what you are? Can't you admit that you are doing it of your own free will?

We need to change the values of our culture and make people aware of little things like honour and decency and - above all else - personal accountability.

Edited August 21, 2009 by Typhus

[Damien.]

Finally at least one country takes a step in the right direction! I can't even imagine the amount of tax money that is used and organized crime created just so that the government take away the freedom of putting whatever people want to put into their body. Dumbest f*cking concept ever.

[Jean Capel]

 

@Jean Capel,

I'll be honest that I don't know if I know many heroin users, it's not a big talking point over here.

the fact that some 200 some odd years ago one (or several) of the founders of the united states used heroin/opium is irrelevant.

Not really, it shows that responsible drug use won't make you a waster, being a waster will. Typhus is right when he said it's about responsibility, I just disagree with his methods on achieving that goal.

 

 

'I'm not going to debate my opinion'

I say that a lot but I usually end up debating anyway, most of the time I say it to appear the bigger-man but in reality I'm not. I love a good banter

Heh, I don't know personally heroin users, just a few, but I've been unlucky enough to see some of the byproducts of what they are capable of.

 

 

As for the responsible drug use, I suppose I agree with you that even with the seriously negative effects of heroin, it can be used

'responsibly' (I use that term loosely). However, I just haven't seen many examples of people capable of that kind of self-control. With Marijuana, being a much less dangerous drug, I think it'd be much more sensible for it to be legalized.

 

If I saw that society as a whole had systems for getting people clean/supporting their families, and that people were capable of controlling their usage of Heroin, along with a few other things, maybe I wouldn't be so against it's legalization, but I just seem to think Marijuana has fewer risks to it's legalization.

 

 

 

P.S.: I love a good banter as well, if you couldn't tell.

[trip]

Jean Capel, not gonna quote and all, but yup.......

 

no good comes from heroine. i can't believe people still experiment with it. what happened to the 'you do heroine - you die' teachings? i have no problem with people doing the required experimentations, but i will forever be baffled by smack heads.

 

but then if the plan of using money for treatment pans out it may be a-ok to let people have their smack. i can't think serious heroine addicts want to continue on with their habit at some point, and if they could get free treatment(not methadone) that might not be so bad.

[Seachmall]

I wonder if the founding fathers had thought about it would they have added it to the constitution. Would have saved us all a lot of hassle.

Edited August 21, 2009 by Seachmall

[Jean Capel]

 

I wonder if the founding fathers had thought about it would they have added it to the constitution. Would have saved us all a lot of hassle.

I suppose they didn't think that drugs would be given illegality after their death, which is why the didn't put it in the constitution. Too bad we don't have a crystal ball to see what they'd say.

 

 

 

 

(Me imagines the founding fathers in a bar brawl over whether or not heroin should or shouldn't be legalized.)

 

 

@Trip: Yea, Methadone is as bad as heroin practically. Who's the genius who came up with the idea "Hey let's get these guys off of a drug, by addicting them to another drug!

[Seachmall]

 

@Trip: Yea, Methadone is as bad as heroin practically. Who's the genius who came up with the idea "Hey let's get these guys off of a drug, by addicting them to another drug!

Interesting read,Germany give out free heroin to addicts, and it helps them get off it.

 

And getting them addicted to another drug helps to save their lives. If you just take away the drug they'll die, if you gradually give them less potent drugs they'll be able to get clean, although the link above suggests just giving them heroin anyway. More efficient.

[trip]

I wonder if the founding fathers had thought about it would they have added it to the constitution. Would have saved us all a lot of hassle.

marijuana was displayed at the fair in phila around the same time the constitution was signed. i don't think i have to repeat how it is known about the weed smoking of the founding fathers.

 

aside from them smoking weed - look up famous atheists...surprising to see how many founding fathers were atheists. a bunch of weed smoking atheists. no wonder im proud to be a philadelphian

[Blizzard14]

This topic is turning into something that would belong in D&D...

[Jean Capel]

 

@Trip: Yea, Methadone is as bad as heroin practically. Who's the genius who came up with the idea "Hey let's get these guys off of a drug, by addicting them to another drug!

Interesting read,Germany give out free heroin to addicts, and it helps them get off it.

 

And getting them addicted to another drug helps to save their lives. If you just take away the drug they'll die, if you gradually give them less potent drugs they'll be able to get clean, although the link above suggests just giving them heroin anyway. More efficient.

Well, that article does raise some interesting points.

 

 

1: State-issued Heroin to addicts seems to be safer, cleans the streets up a bit, and can help these people get their lives back on track.

 

2: State-issued Heroin (according to the Swiss model I believe) seems to lower drug-related deaths.

 

3: State issued Heroin (according to that article) does not seem to have a disproportionate difference in the number who finish drug clean when compared to Methadone.

 

 

 

 

Despite all the positives to that program, assuming that article is accurate, here is my question. Should the tax-payers pay to give addicts who ruined themselves, drugs? Should we* be obligated to pay for these people to get their sh*t together?

 

 

Also, how do you get people clean when feeding them the drug every day? Do you just cut them off one day?**

 

 

 

*In this case, we means the tax-payers of whatever country implements this program on a large scale.

 

 

**I really don't know this one, as I'm not extremely knowledgeable on the 'cleaning' process of the systems of drug addicts.

[Sanjeem]

Won't the Huge Drug Cartels Get problems though, or does dealing become less of an issue now. Wow, though i never would have thought it.

[Seachmall]

 

Despite all the positives to that program, assuming that article is accurate, here is my question. Should the tax-payers pay to give addicts who ruined themselves, drugs? Should we* be obligated to pay for these people to get their sh*t together?

That's a good point. And, oddly enough, I don't think we should. I'd personally donate money to it but I don't think it should be a government thing. It works better than current methods so I'd definitely switch the systems but overall I'm not sure if we should be held responsible for their well-being when they choose to use in the first place. They'd have to give back (community service, talking to schools about drug use etc.).

Also, how do you get people clean when feeding them the drug every day? Do you just cut them off one day?**

They gradually water the heroin down until their body is able to cope without it. From what I understand heroin, and other similar drugs, begin to replace chemicals the body naturally produces (it sees the heroin as a more efficient substitute). So the body now stops producing the chemical expecting the substitute from an external source, you have to slowly train the body to begin producing the chemical again.

 

(If I'm right this is why you don't get addicted or suffer withdrawal symptoms from weed, it doesn't substitute a natural chemical but promotes it's production to extreme levels where you get high).

Edited August 22, 2009 by Seachmall

[Jean Capel]

I could see the State-Issued heroin work if those using it were obligated to give back like you said, educating others/community service/helping out in the clinic after they get clean. Otherwise, there's no way in a frozen hell I'd (when obligated to) pay taxes for something like that. Ironically, the only way I see the clinic working is if it is government run, so I'd say it'd have to be tax-funded, and the users would give back. Of course, donations would help as well.

 

 

 

Also, I think that the people in the program would need to have requirements (have a place to stay, hold a steady job, ect) and employers would have a right to know whether or not they were in the program.

 

[beto]

It figures haters would run up in the topic and fill it with their bullsh*t..

 

 

 

[D- Ice]

That's a very good idea, and should take a lot of finance and thus power from the horrendously powerfull drug cartels there. I heard this one Mexican Cartel hired like 10 special forces soldiers from the Mexican military itself, attracted by the much larger pay, as well as buying assault rifles, bullet proof vests and even kevlar helmets for them - a fully outfitted military squad!

 

These gangs have also been increasingly challanging government rule of the country - in some places ther are trying to win hearts and minds and are being celebrated as folk heros! This new law will make it possible for small-time, non-gang affiliated local dealers to flourish and maybe eventually get a stranglehold on the business in the long term. This is because they are much more agile and adaptive than the gangs who usually operate in larger numbers out of more complex front structure and are both less agile, more expensive and less adaptive to constant change.

 

I for one am strongly for legalisation of most soft drugs, and the allowing their free-market trading by legitimate businesses. That would definately take all power away from those scumbag gangs dealing them. It will also mean they are much more regulated and decrease harm to health of users from dangerous cutting agents and improper usage. And for the idiots who believe more people will take drgs if they become legal - if you don't take drugs now - would you suddenly start because they are legal? I don't think so.

If anything, the incidence of new users will decrease, as drugs will lose their 'illegal/rebelious' factor which attracts many teens - who make up the vast majority of incidence of new users.

[Mike Tequeli]

The list of people who regularly used mind-altering substances and still made successes of themselves.

There is a big difference between people like Cobain and Kennedy and those who smoke a joint and pretend to be so enlightened on the issue of drugs. I can see past their lies, their hypocrisy, their childish excuses.

If you want to take responsibility? Fine, I respect that.

If you say: "Yes, I knew the risks, but I'll still do it regardless because I want to do as I please with my own life." Then yeah, that's good, in a way I admire that attitude.

But it's these weak minded simpletons, you must have met them.

You ask why they do it.

"Oh, peer pressure! Peer pressure!"

Will they quit?

"I want to! I want to! I would if I could!"

Maybe you should have your drugs taken away.

"Dude, that's like totally fascism man! It's my right! My right!"

I encounter these people so often. Blaming others for their failiures and then claiming to be merely enjoying the freedom to pollute their bodies.

Either do drugs like a man, admit it and have no delusions on the issue, or don't do them at all.

But don't look me in the eyes like an honest man and then bleat and moan about how you never had a choice, about how you are a product of a bad upbringing or a broken society.

We need honesty. That it all. Honesty.

I find it interesting that you are advocating personal responsibility along with government prohibition. They don't go hand in hand, any attempt to stem the drug trade directly is usually in some form nanny statism, in the sense that the government thinks it knows best for you.

 

Typhus, you must realize that on a practical level prohibition is not working, and will never work. We have to turn to personal responsibility because it is the only thing that makes sense at this point, that is if were are going to ignore the ethical issues of the government regulating what you do with yourself.

[TheGuyFromThere]

It'll be very interesting to watch how this impacts on overall health, society and the economy. Whether the Daily Mail is correct about its opinion, or whether High Times is.

 

Personally I believe that legalisation of most drugs is beneficial. My reasoning is, they're no more harmful than alcohol and tobacco. Substances which are often forgotten about when the word 'drugs' are mentioned. And also, drugs would be a huge source of revenue and jobs in these times of need.

 

Prohibition is coming to an end soon, folks! Don't hold your breath though, Britain, we'll be the last to follow suit once the Daily Mailers get their way...

[Sergi]

It isn't like any of this is hurting the Cartels just like none of this would hurt any gang,drug operation or criminal organization. The amounts they've legalized are amounts small time drug pushers would sell not multi kilo and pound drug operations. The Cartles will still be supplying 100% of the coke, weed, LSD and dope so it's not like they'll be loosing any types of money because people buying the legal amount would still have to get it from drug dealers who would still be getting their drugs from the Cartels. Then if they went the Amsterdam route the Cartels would still be selling huge amounts of drugs in Mexico. Say there are legal places to buy weed like Weed/Coffe shops like in Amsterdam. You can still only get less then a quarter of legal weed. People tend to buy quarters and up if they smoke alot so they'd still be able to go to the drug dealers. Not to mention the government couldn't possibly price the weed lower then street value. If they made regular weed say $3.00 a gram instead of the typical $5 it would just make the weed prices on the streets go down and the Cartels would match the prices.

 

There is no prohibition to drugs and their will never be a win for any government with drugs. They could legalize it all they want but there'd still be a market for the street value. I'm pretty sure 15 years ago Pharmacutical companies never thought Oxycotin or Percaset would be sold on the streets even though they are legal. Hell I'm pretty sure the government would make some sort of law saying people with violent past or people who have commited crimes while high can't purchase the drugs or something. Or they may make it like alsohal and ciggarettes for people under 21 and 18. Regardless people are going to get to the drugs the illegal way even if they make them 100% legal because every group will not always be able to get the drugs at certain times. Rather it's because legal problems or age.