Mexico to legalize nearly all drugs

Politics International Politics
1

Mexico to legalize ALL drugs

Almost all of’em, pretty much. Wow. This will make them more liberal than the Netherlands. Like most people, I don’t exactly keep up with Mexican politics, so this comes as a complete shocker. This is going to have some serious ramifications for the U.S., and not just because of the anticipated hordes of weekend influx of partygoers from over the border.

On the other hand, is it humanly possible for Tijuana to get any sleazier? I dunno if millions of crazed American drug tourists is going to change the border towns that much.

2

I’m no expert. but aren’t drugs so expensive because they’re illegal? Will the government now allow the sale of narcotics in 7/11 and be able to heavily tax it and use that money for rehabilitation and funding for the war on drugs?

So the price would come down (taking money away from dealers) and the government should be able to make money from taxing it (I think.) Then maybe the government would have more funding to battle the cartels and the cartels not as much money to buy guns, torture people and stuffs.

An old civics teacher I had said he thought drugs should be legal in the US for similar reasons. I for the most part agree.

What’s the big difference between the Marlboro Man and the Pusher Man?

3

Read the article. It will be legal to use drugs, but not to sell drugs. Basically the Mexican government feels that it’s more cost effective for the police to let small-time users slide and focus more on the traffickers.

4

Here’s a story about hard drug use in Vancouver. It hasn’t been legalized, but there’s a medically supervised shooting gallery that’s been open for nearly three years, and just won a three-year extension recommendation from the city police. Pretty much anything’s got to work better than the ‘war on drugs’.

5

Wow, that’;s cool . . does it double as a recruting agency for English teachers? Perhaps a big ad up on the walls - or better still, on the floor, screaching "Waiting fior my man, but aint got no $26 in your hand? Come to Taiwan. . . "

Kidding. [quote]Pretty much anything’s got to work better than the ‘war on drugs’.[/quote]

Agreed.
HG

6

I am personally in favor of the legalization, Gov’t control of sales as well as the taxation of all aspects of so-designated ‘recreational drugs.’ This includes pretty much everything other than Dr. prescribed pharmaceuticals. The WOD just does not work and never will. Legalize, Control and Tax.

Surprised ya’…didn’t I? :sunglasses:

7

:laughing: A little bit, yeah.

I don’t know that I’d go so far as to legalize “all aspects of so-designated ‘recreational drugs’,” but I could be convinced if it would reduce use and harm.

Such forms of recreation don’t make much sense to me. Silly buggers: far too much harm done.

8

My guess is that a proper plan of legalization could well do the latter but is unlikely to do the former. The latter is probably the more important, but I suppose opinions will vary on that.

Personally, I find the stubborn refusal of legalization advocates to contemplate the real prospect of increased drug use and addiction to be regrettably common. (Note: Not saying you are guilty of this, J)

Legalization advocates should argue that the reduced harms associated with trafficking crime, gang violence, corruption, impure drugs, refusal to seek medical care etc. outweigh the harms associated with increased use. They should argue that use would only increase moderately but not radically. These are very solid arguments. Worthy arguments. No reason to claim that a real-world policy will have no drawbacks.

That’s often not the way the debate goes, though. :s

shrug The desire of advocates of a certain position to defend every aspect of that position is probably hardwired into us to some extent. I think we see some of that desire in the attitudes of some who feel compelled to defend virtually every policy position advocated by one’s favored political party (or attack virtually every position of the other) too. Oh well.

I
n truth, this latest policy switch by Mexico does not seem so radical after reading the details does it? They are hardly legalizing drugs.

According to the article mod lang posted, penalties for selling drugs have in certain cases been made even more severe. Furthermore, it appears that possession of even a trace amount of these supposedly “legal” drugs can still see the holder taken down to the police station, and also subject to criminal fines. In fact, all they seem to be doing is changing the nature of the punishment they hand out – i.e. refusing to throw casual users in jail.

So, despite the sensationalist headlines I’m seeing out there about “Mexico’s Drug Legalization”, the articles I’ve seen so far actually show no reason why someone couldn’t oppose drug legalization and still agree with this law. :idunno:

9

Yes, Hobbes as a supporter of legalisation I agree with you on that argument.
Making something cheaper and easier to get (and probably raising the quality) is going to reduce consumption?

10

My guess is that a proper plan of legalization could well do the latter but is unlikely to do the former. . . Personally, I find the stubborn refusal of legalization advocates to contemplate the real prospect of increased drug use and addiction to be regrettably common. . . They should argue that use would only increase moderately but not radically. . . [/quote]

Why should one automatically assume that a reduction in recreational drug use is a good thing? Isn’t it only a subjective opinion that any and all uses of marijuana, for example, are bad? There may be scientific studies and anecdotal evidence concerning harm to the lungs or short-term memory or social abilities due to heavy use of the herb. But if a guy wants to light up occassionally in the privacy of his home, to relax after work, and he feels that provides him with very real, substantial benefits that outweigh any potential harms, there’s no objective, scientific means of determining that, no, he is mistaken, his use of the herb is bad and harmful.

I believe it’s only an extreme moral judgment to proclaim that all recreational use of drugs – not just marijuana, but also cocaine, mushrooms, LSD, or whatever a person may enjoy – is harmful. If a person is able to use a substance in moderation, enjoys doing so, feels it is a good thing in his/her life (as is the case for many people), then such use is good, not bad.

Therefore, I believe it’s a mistake to feel legalization of drugs is only a good idea if it decreases use of drugs. Many people enjoy using recreational drugs in moderation or perhaps would enjoy doing so if the drugs were legalized.

Was it wrong to do away with prohibition because people might then drink more alcohol? Just because one can buy booze at any 7/11 doesn’t mean everyone will become a hopeless drunk; most people have enough common sense and restraint to use alcohol only in moderation. Same for other drugs. Those who can’t keep their use in moderation are more likely to get help if the substance is legal and the government provides them with treatment rather than simply punishment.

[quote]According to the article mod lang posted . . . all they seem to be doing is changing the nature of the punishment they hand out – i.e. refusing to throw casual users in jail.

So, despite the sensationalist headlines I’m seeing out there about “Mexico’s Drug Legalization”, the articles I’ve seen so far actually show no reason why someone couldn’t oppose drug legalization and still agree with this law. :idunno:[/quote]

Agreed. A large segment of our society and lawmakers take an extreme, moralistic, just say no and if you can’t say no we’ll throw your ass in jail, stance when it comes to the use of drugs (even opposing the use of marijuana by terminally ill cancer patients), which is stupid and harmful.

11

[quote]NBC News called this morning. Could they come interview me about Mexican drug decriminalization? Sure, I said, but as far as I can tell decriminalization isn’t what happened. Fine, they said, we’ll be right over.

So I made on camera pretty much the same points I’d made on the radio:

  1. The new law would expand the number of police who can make drug arrests.

  2. The new law would free users caught with small quantities from going to jail, but not from arrest.

  3. The Federales probably weren’t in the habit of arresting users for possessing small amounts, any more than the DEA is.

  4. The new law more or less tracks California law, and the law in many other states: users, if arrested, get diverted from the criminal justice system.

The reporter seemed very reluctant to believe any of this. He kept asking me what-ifs: What if the local ordinances against possession permitted by the new law don’t actually get passed? (I failed to point out that most of the Mexican border cities already have such laws.) When I pointed out that there was no reason to imagine that Vicente Fox was soft on drugs, or would want to pass a soft-on-drugs law so near the election which Felipe Calderon, his chosen successor, seems to have a real shot at winning, the reporter replied with dark suspicion that Fox was lying low, not commenting publicly on the new law. (The notion that Fox might be hiding from the U.S. media fury didn’t seem to appeal to him.)

When the reporter failed to call back as promised to let me know when the story would run, I guessed that my viewpoint hadn’t made it into the segment. I was right.

The story as it aired (scroll down to “Mexico moves to soften drug law”) was about as inflammatory as imaginable. The anchor introduced it as an account of “the outrage in this country over a decision by Mexico to make possession of some illegal drugs legal.” The correspondent, Peter Alexander, after a reference to “dangerous narcotics” and the usual grim war-on-drugs footage, reported that “in effect, the law would approve the use, in small amounts, of a dizzying array of illegal drugs.” The law, he said, was “among the most permissive in the world.”

Drug czar John Walters was shown saying that “if we are talking about legalizing drugs, that’s bad for everybody.” (That suggests Walters had doubts that the new law was legalization, but if so he wasn’t shown expressing them.) His predecessor Barry McCaffrey skipped the “if,” and opined lugubriously about the risk of “cross-border drug tourism out of the United States, to include college students.” A drug counselor from San Diego talked of the risk that San Diegans could “go across the border and buy heroin out in the open.” (How people were going to openly buy a drug it would remain a serious crime to sell wasn’t made clear.) Alexander talked of counsellors’ fears of being “swamped by a new audience of addicts.”

A lone Mexican official was shown denying that the law legalized drugs, and the view that the new law would help focus attention on traffickers was attributed to the Mexican government, but those were left as bare assertions, discredited by everything else said and shown.

This evening, under what appears to have been intense pressure from the U.S., Vicente Fox capitulated, saying that he would not sign the bill his own appointee as head of the Federales had shepherded through the Mexican Congress. It’s hard to guess whether this rather public humiliation of Fox will damage Calderon’s chances of beating Lopez Obrador; what seems certain is that none of the American drug warriors whipping up the furore had bothered to think about that question.[/quote]
samefacts.com/