Posted on 09/15/2009 10:11:07 AM PDT by mojito
Mexico announced recently that it will decriminalize the possession of "small amounts of drugs"—marijuana, cocaine, LSD, methamphetamines, heroin and opium—"for personal use." Individuals who are caught by law enforcement with quantities below established thresholds will no longer face criminal prosecution. A person apprehended three times with amounts below the minimum, though, will face mandatory treatment.
For the government of President Felipe Calderón, which has spent the last three years locked in mortal combat with narcotrafficking cartels, this seems counterproductive. Is the government effectively surrendering to the realities of the market for mind-altering substances? Or could it be that the new policy is only a tactical shift by drug warriors still wedded to the quixotic belief that they can take out suppliers?
The answer is that it is a bit of both. But neither matters. Mexico's big problem—for that matter the most pressing security issue throughout the hemisphere—is organized crime's growth and expanded power, fed by drug profits. Mr. Calderón's new policy is unlikely to solve anything in that department.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
So....on the bright side, this might eventually cure our Illegal Immigrant problem...
First rational point made on this thread in favor of legalized drugs- IN MEXICO.
You wrote, “What’s one got to do with the other?”
The short answer is that they are all areas where the government ought to butt out. But that’s just my tendency -limited government.
So, I was replying to the following post, which talks about the creation of a new national recreational drug bureaucracy.
“It’s a whole new sector of the economy that could be nationalized, bureaucratized and run by the government. With millions of willing clients waiting for product and services.”
I was pointing out that, at least, that new national bureaucracy, according to the poster, would have WILLING customers. Unlike the new bureaucracies actually being implemented.
Not a chance. Too much opportunity for purity products. It would be regulated just like alcohol.
Potheads would be stuck with crappy "government weed". They'd still get felony raps for dealing and illegally growing and or selling spiced imported products.
They'd be forced to buy large amounts of "government weed" and making oil from that. or buying crack to make it more interesting, like they do now anyways.
Then they'd sit around depressed more than ever saying, "duuuuude, why did we push for legal weed? Duuuude..."
You’re right. There can be no such thing as a ‘war on drugs’. It’s not the substance, it’s the people.
Addiction is a personality trait and happens no matter what drugs are available. A true addictive person will do anything to escape. Whether it is sniffing paint or choking themselves.
My holocaust survivor grand mom vividly recounted: In postwar Russia when there were no drugs and barely any food available, addicts would boil old shoes/belts/tires and inhale the vapor to get high. Many would also take unknown plants and eat them until they were intoxicated. Paint thinner and airplane de-icer were worth their weight in gold. Fermented tea leaves were highly addictive and potent.
The ‘war on drugs’ is really meant to be a ‘war on addiction’. And that makes as much sense as a ‘war on laziness’ or ‘war on stupidity’.
This means that it's ok for government to get involved in something people are willing to line up and pay for.
It just depends what it is, and whether you agree with it or not.
Not really. Take away the substance, and you can't get addicted to it in the first place. Make it so ridiculously expensive, only a very few will go through the trouble of acquiring it. War on drugs makes sense to me. If it were more available than it is now, the social costs would multiply in proportion. Perhaps if you really made the effort to focus in on just how bad the social costs of drug addiction are, saw the misery it causes in peoples lives, not just those taking the drugs, but their families and victims as well, you'd probably change your views. If you keep it at arms length, and are only affected by the news of it, then you just become desensitized, and take on the "oh well, it's not happening to me" , so what harm can it do if a few more get high attitude.
nonsense. The second amendment was written within the framwork of a moral and just Christian society. It was never meant to apply in a free for all, lawless and godless society.
The only problem with the war on drugs, is the judicial system, the liberal lawyers that infest this country. it just a revolving door, intentionally. It’s never ending cash cow that they can milk without ever worrying the cow will go dry.
THAT is what has to change. Dealers need to be put away permanently. Death penalty if they sell bad drugs that kill a bunch of stupid kids.
Work farms for permanent residents.
What is nonsense? I want to buy a Rock Island .45. My masters in Sacramento will not let me. Why? Because I purchased a SIG 9mm on September 1 and they have decided that one new gun a month is all that I will be allowed to buy. Why? They use the reason of keeping guns out of the hands of Nortenos, Surenos, La Eme, whatever senor. Yo no give a s*t. The only hands it's keeping a gun out of is mine. Is that not an infringement? Was it not done in response to the failed war on drugs? When you have lost the support of people like me you have lost the war. You can make book on that.
You’re right. The social costs of addiction are staggering. They probably even approach the costs of laziness and stupidity.
I am the furthest thing from arm’s length. Volunteered at a rehab clinic and I saw the destruction every day. I speak to real addicts almost every week and they are just constantly seeking escape. It doesn’t matter what substances are available.
Addicts will ALWAYS be addicted to something no matter what substances are available. They tend to fixate on a few highs but ALWAYS move on when something is taken away. Drugs, alcohol, paint, sex, porn, murder, video games, asphyxiation, exercise, gambling, TV, vanity and food just to name a few. They are all the same in an addict’s mind and can destroy their lives and others’ lives just as much.
There should be no ‘war’ but a greater awareness of what addiction is and how to get people to positively change their lives. Many of the addicts I helped treat tried to return to society but were permanently blacklisted by being labeled criminals. Criminals for simply possessing a certain chemical. It’s no different than giving lazy people a rap sheet.
Don’t you think we ought to include alcohol and cigarettes in the punitive prohibition?
You can't legislate morality.
Any attempt to do so will only limit the freedoms of law-abiding citizens since criminals, by their very definition, don't obey laws.
You can't even keep drugs out of prisons. How do you plan to keep them out of a 'free' society?
Or, is society already too free for your liking?
Why not just legalize marijuana and remove the never-enforced tax on it? Let those who want it just grow some in their backyards. That would take almost all of the profit out of it (I'm assuming there would still be some kind of market for the more potent "brands").
You've spent so much time among the trees you've forgotten what the forest looks like.
It is obvious that the problem is with the people, not the substance.
Or, should we have a War on Alcohol, Paint, Sex, Porn, Murder, Video Games, Asphyxiation, Exercise, Gambling, TV, Vanity and Food, too?
At what point do you hold people responsible for their own actions instead of blaming the inanimate object?
We already do that for real crimes.
Not the stupid crime of simply possessing an intimate object. Since there is no victim and such a small burden of proof, it can be easily planted on you and turn you into a criminal.
For example:
Smoking crack and forgetting to feed your kids should be a crime. The starving of the kids is the crime, not smoking crack. The starving kids are the victim and proof of the crime.
Having a crack rock or any object in your possession should not be a crime. There is no victim and it can be easily planted on you by anyone. Think of someone jealous tossing a crack pipe under your seat. You get pulled over and simple indisputable possession can be a felony. That’s all it takes and I’ve seen it ruin people’s lives more than once.
Prisons are full of convicted drug dealers and drug users. Why should it be surprising that there are drugs in prisons?
My comment was meant ironically. All countries that have “legalized” narcotics have done so through creating a huge state bureaucracy to administer to drug users. The results have not been particularly benign. And the state simply creates more dependents. Hardly the model of a “free” society.
Does a free society require everyone to be able to do anything that strikes their fancy of the moment, regardless of the consequences? My problem with libertarianism is that the social order they propose sounds more to me like an invitation to license rather than a preservation of liberty.
Exactly. So, how do you propose to keep them out of a supposedly free society?
My comment was meant ironically. All countries that have “legalized†narcotics have done so through creating a huge state bureaucracy to administer to drug users. The results have not been particularly benign. And the state simply creates more dependents. Hardly the model of a “free†society.
This isn't done to help the users, but to expand the size and scope of the government. Or, do you honestly believe that the government cares about the people?
Does a free society require everyone to be able to do anything that strikes their fancy of the moment, regardless of the consequences?
I never said this and your attempts to put such words in my mouth only make you out to be the fool.
I believe in holding people responsible for their actions. What do you believe?
You believe that an adult should be “free” to manufacture, distribute and ingest as much methamphetamine as they would wish. As long as they don’t “hurt” anyone else.
How long do you think it will be before that happens?
I would be careful who you start calling a fool.
What countries are you talking about? Adjusted for population, Singapore had nearly twice the number of heroin addicts under treatment in rehab centers, versus the total number of heroin addicts in the Netherlands.
Does a free society require everyone to be able to do anything that strikes their fancy of the moment, regardless of the consequences?
No, but if fedgov is going to involve itself in such matters, then it needs to have the enumerated power to do so (see Tenth Amendment).
Do you think the Wickard decision is in keeping with the original understanding of the Commerce Clause... yes or no?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.