If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Mexico to decriminalise pot, cocaine and heroin
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
MEXICO CITY (Reuters) - Possessing marijuana, cocaine and even heroin will no longer be a crime in Mexico if they are in small amounts for personal use under new reforms passed by Congress that quickly drew U.S. criticism.
The measure given final passage 53-26 by senators in a late night session on Thursday is aimed at letting police focus on their battle against major drug dealers, and President Vicente Fox is expected to sign it into law.
[...]The legal changes will also decriminalize the possession of limited quantities of other drugs, including LSD, hallucinogenic mushrooms, amphetamines and peyote -- a psychotropic cactus found in Mexico's northern deserts.
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/29042006/80-132/mexico-decriminalize-pot-cocaine-heroin.html
Olé! to Mexico. How refreshing indeed.
US is not too pleased though
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments
A philosophy to live by : Mind Your Own Fucking Business :thumb:
expect a big trade barrier between usa and mexico to be announced though.
if and when the price of coke falls, i think so will petty crime.
people love to get high.
the US in my opinion is upset because other more addictive, arguably more fun drugs is big competition to BIG TOBACCO and ALCOHOL ad therfore affect profits. plus, like Chris Rock said, the best drugs arent made in America.
in addition to abling to free and divert resources to the more serious of drug traffcikers, i think the economy will benefit from the possible increase in tourism.
1) Can you not see a significant difference in private citizens (us) sharing and discussing their opinions on the policies of other states, and official state spokesmen of a global superpower criticising the internal policy of another state?
2) Can you not see the difference between criticising the foreign policy of another state (i.e. how it interacts with other states, and therefore everybody's concern) and their internal drugs policy, which is that state's concern only?
3) Can you not see the difference between private citizens criticising another state for internal human rights abuses, and a state criticising another state for increasing their citizens' human rights?
It's a step in the right direction but until a government sums up the balls to fully legalise drugs and to sell them itself through licensed outlets, associated crime will continue to exist.
but like you said, the crime wont stop till it's legal to buy and sell them too
so governments aren't allowed to condem other governments? tit.
Of course they're "allowed" to - but if they are condemning a sovereign state which has made a democratic decision to extend their citizens' human rights, then do you wonder why their condemnation is met with such derision?!
State condemnation of another state should be used sparingly and with serious consideration. Not that words are particularly harmful - what everybody here (I hope) recognises is that these words are simply an indication of the official, semi-official, and covert physical and political attacks on other sovereign states (particularly in Central and Latin America) that the USA has been mounting for decades.
"Drugs are dangerous. We don't think it is the appropriate way to go."
omg keep your nose out of other country's business
From the USA, I consider that a threat. Has the USA explicitly threatened Iran?
Actions speak louder than words. If you have consistently shown the willingness to act violently upon your 'convictions' (as Aladdin points out these are of course not unbreakable values) then it is unnecessary to make specific threats. Especially if you have a heavily funded secret state through which to anonymously conduct your dirty work.
The USA (ostensibly) dissapproves of drug use, that much is evident from their own internal drugs policy. That is an openly held position, which is obvious to all, and their business alone. The Mexican government (and populace) knows how the US government feels about drugs, it is not necessary for them to reiterate it to them - apart from anything else this is incredibly patronising. How another state chooses to handle the issue is none of their concern.
Perhaps, since you consider it appropriate, the Mexican government should now condemn the US government for its illiberal drug laws? I wonder how that would go down
Hmmmm....perhaps, although it could result in the reverse; Mexican dealers would have a greater potential market to exploit within their own country, as more Mexicans are unafraid to use drugs.
If it does make it easier for them to smuggle drugs into the US, then the US government should concern themselves with securing their own borders, and squander their own resources on enforcing prohibition: rather than pressuring other (significantly more impoverished) countries to do it for them.
Dealers don't benefit from this at all.
It’s naturally Mexico’s decision, although unsurprisingly some on here instantly turn Mexico’s new drugs policy around into some pathetic anti-American wankfest. US opposition is entirely understandable – if Scotland (were it independent) legalised hard drugs I don’t think England would be thrilled about it.
Mexico are probably going down the right road though, prohibition has evidently failed. While drug use should never be condoned decriminalisation is perhaps a more realistic option.
we've got 'em surrounded!
If that is so, whats the point in legalising it? I mean...its not much they are allowed!
Bullshit - anti-US government wankfest perhaps, not anti-American.
And I don't think anyone who supports this Mexican policy would be hypocritical enough to oppose a (hypothetically) independent Scotland's drugs policy either; but I don't know about that, I only speak for myself.
Of course, considering that dis is incapable of any independent thought beyond parroted headlines, "anti-American wankfest" is right on par for him. All the more humorous/pathetic (take your pick) is his regular application of that irrational label despite the fact that he himself is not even American.
Gotta love neocon apologists, though, simply for their ill-informed views.
Actually you have, perhaps inadvertently, made an interesting point. By that I mean that there is a case being advanced in the public debate about the difference between "decriminalisation" and "legalisation". I personally would suggest that the chosen option should be decriminalisation thus removing personal recreational practices of private citizens entirely from the legislative domain. To "legalise" would be add additional regulatory oversight to already existing laws without, in fact, eliminating those prior laws from the penal code. It also opens the door for legislators to introduce additional tax burdens on the public.
"Decriminalisation" on the other hand would simply call for the scrapping of all existing laws with regard to that particular substance, thus freeing considerable budgetary and manpower resources for reallocation to truly serious criminal acts.
Despite the oft conflation of the two terms in common parlance, there is a distinct difference between them.
[edited to add: In keeping with the previous point, it should be pointed out that Mexico is actually legalising not decriminalising these substances.]
That just made my evening!
N.b. In hindsight should have realised from the use of 'wank' :banghead:
One day in the future the entire world will be like this- and they will look back at the 20th and 21st centuries and be amazed at the fact that a person could be penalsied for taking something that might be harmful to them.
The very notion of it is so ludicrous it beggars belief.
Not to mention drinking alcohol, the single biggest and most dangerous drug known to man.
It's nobody's business whether I choose to consume cannabis, cocaine, heroine or horse's shit. Absolutely nobody's.