Mexico will allow use of marijuana, ecstasy, cocaine and heroin for personal use

[cherub_rocker1979]

https://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12535896/

[gilad]

that is crazy. i never read more than the first paragraph to come to that conclusion.
our government here in south africa once made all drugs legal by accident. heroin, cocaine, blah, it lasted for 3 weeks until they could reverse act.
stupid health minister!

[prometheus]

By accident? That's insane. Here it would take more than a year to change a law...

When all drugs are regulated criminal organisations will no longer have an effective way to make money.

When that is done we can try to find out how to make sure as little people use and abuse drugs.

Making any drug legal for personal use is pointless. My country has been the first to do this. People will still have to buy the drugs from criminals.

[edit] Well, it isn't legal according to the letter of the law. I guess this created some confusion. That is because it is confusing. It is hard to understand how something can be both legal and illegal at the same time

[gilad]

yeah, i guess our laws might be very flexible to change the whole system around from apartheid.

[henrah]

Making any drug legal for personal use is pointless. My country has been the first to do this. People will still have to buy the drugs from criminals.

Why's that? Surely if it's being sold legally for personal use, the seller isn't a criminal.
Henrah

[prometheus]

If it is only legel to own and use drugs for personal use it is still very much illegal to build a big farm and to cultivate a lot of drugs. Unless you make drug production legal as well.

Actually, selling drugs will be an illegal act. The possesiing the drugs, a lot more than someone who has a small quantity for personal use, would also be illegal, etc.

Unless the person grows his own drugs. I am no expert on drugs but I can imagine that could be impossible or impractical for some types of drugs.


In my country it is still illegal to use marijuana. It is just that the politicians have decided that the police and the justice will just ignore people that have marijuana. The shops that sell marijuana have to buy it in secret from criminals. There criminals make a lot of money because the government does try to dismantle the growing of marijana. It is very silly.

[henrah]

Where are you from Prometheus?

Is the case you are speaking about in your country the same as in Holland? Or do the coffee shops there get the weed from growing plantations?
Henrah

[prometheus]

Yes, Holland.

The coffee shops get the weed from people that secretly grow marijuana in their attic. There are people without an education, that live in poor neighbourhoods, every society has them. In Holland they do get money from the government but of course that is very little So when some 'friend' tells them to lend them their attic for a quick buck they often agree with this. Often the police finds out rather quickly, because electricity is illegally tapped. But when this happens the 'friend' has already harverested the marijuana.

Or from criminals that buy old cheap factory halls. These people are often criminal organisations, involved in all kinds of crime. Marijuana is an easy steady way to get some money so they can invest money in the more serious stuff.

At this moment a lot of local government people want this to stop. Either regulate production or make it illegal to use marijuana. The last thing is something that little people want and that one one thinks is realistic. The first thing is in violation of international treaties. Near the border there is a lot of 'drug tourism' so the problem there is really big. Criminals can make a lot of money.

Also, the people that own these 'coffee shops' are very normal people. But they have to do business with criminals; shady people that do not really work and that drive big cars. These people get into moral difficulties.


The problem has gotten so 'big' that the minister of justice, an artifact from the '50s and member of the christian party, has recorded an anti-regulation rap. This in reaction to an important major of the same party recording a pro-regulation rap.


I just read an article on Mexico. The reason they legalised use is solely to force the police and the justice system to focus on those that sell; the big guys rather than the 'poor addicts'. So drug use has not become more acceptable. This is just a tactic against drugs.

[gorbee natcase]

Why not legalise them completely that way they would be cheap so crime would go down.
Drug pushers would have no insentive to pedal drugs to youngsters. If people are prepared to risk there health let them. we do anyway or we woulod have a stop sign at the bottom of Mt Everist  saying

                                                                             Due to health and safety
                                                                             Bo person/s to venture
                                                                             beyond this point!

As Drugs are a real problem that won't go away. why not remove the organised crime aspect from it

[prometheus]

I agree.

It is not just organised crime, though I think almost all organised crime is involved in drug trade. There are also quite of number of wars in the world funded by drug money. This included Colombia and Afghanistan.

It is kind of funny since we dump tabacco on their markets. If a country closes its border for tobacco then they will get the WTO after them for limiting 'free trade'. Then, thanks to subsidised farming in both the US and Europe, the only product third world farmers can produce that we westerners want to pay a fair amount of money for are drugs. And if they do this 'we' send chemical warfare after them; destroying their lands with chemicals.

Personally I hate any kind of drugs, I do not use alcohol which is very common in my country. But I think that legalising, even things are herione, would be a good choice.

[henrah]

I think legalising and regulating cannabis is a great idea for any government, and they can make some easy money off taxing it and allowing advertising.

For example:
You could sell pouches of cannabis at newsagents, much like they do with tobacco, and the government could gain money from taxing it, again much like they do with tobacco. They could also contain advertising on the pouches, and the rudimentary 'Smoking kills' messages. But there would have to be some sort of census, as the current fight against cannabis is problems with mental health. These are very few, and so I thought of an ID card for cannabis. Basically, you go have a mental health check at your local doctors (or specific cannabis mental health check places) and - if you are mentally healthy and are highly unlikely to have any mental problems through smoking cannabis - you obtain an ID card that allows you to buy cannabis. Also an age restriction should be put on it, which I think 18 or 21 would be a suitable age. If you don't have a cannabis ID card, and are not over 18/21, you can't buy or smoke cannabis. And if a policeman finds someone underage or without a cannabis ID card smoking cannabis, then certain police procedures shall follow, of which I shan't go into as I'm not fully educated in police law/action.

Also, the government will be able to control THC levels to a certain extent, as many people are argueing that the cannabis nowadays is a lot stronger than it used to be. This mainly comes from hybrids and cross pollination, much like a farmer mates the healthiest bull with the most milk-producing and best meat-quality cow to get the best new born cow. If the government were to grow the cannabis, they would have complete control over this and many other aspects. Obviously it will still be illegal for anyone but a licensed shop to sell it.

I think this will also stop the dealers selling it, as people who want to buy it would most likely not want to risk getting arrested and would just buy it from the newsagents. There will still be the problem of older people buying it for younger people, much like it is nowadays with cigarretes and alcohol (of which I don't know how to solve, and it will probably keep going), but it isn't half as bad as allowing people to make money off of selling cannabis to others, including people as young as 12.

There would also have to be some restrictions on the smoking of cannabis, most specifically where it would be legal. Maybe there could be designated spots, or something similar; and the smoking ban that could possibly come in will also affect it. I think one restriction should be smoking it in highly public places (i.e. the street) and near schools, or anything child related.

What do you guys think of my idea? Do you think the British government would consider it?
Henrah

[prometheus]

Yes, I think that would be better. Expecially containing the THC levels. I have been told they are off the scale in Holland. Cannabis normally has 7% THC. Here it is about 20% on average to about 39%.

As for taxing, that is what governments like to do.


As for the healthy issues, including mental health. It seems it is a bit unclear. Here cannabis is smokes with tobacco. I once told someone this and this person found that strange. So the issue of wheneter smoking cannabis is more dangerous or less dangerous than smoking pure tobacco is unclear. I have seen very different claims.
As for health problems. I have been told about both increased risk of depression and schizophrenia.

But I can tell you that cannabis will destroy your short-term memory. It will really lay a could of mist over your brain, if used on a regular basis. So it is really poor for schoolgoing teenagers.

As far as addiction. It is only mentally addictive. Anything can be mentally addictive. I mean, things like MMO computer games seem to be very addicitive. They aren't banned.

In my country the amount of your people addicted to cannabis is relatively low. It is true that a lot of people, maybe even most people that smoke, have tried cannabis. I mean, politicians don't have to say 'I didn't inhale' like Clinton did. Actually someone asked our probably future prime-minister, this question and he started to make fun of the answer Clinton gave after telling about his cannabis experience.

Again, about legalisation. Our currecnt government, in which the biggest party is a christian party, has claimed international treaties make it impossible to legalise cannabis/marijuana. I don't think the UK will legalise cannabis before Holland will.

Actually, Holland has gotten a lot of critisism by France, the US and probably many other countries.

[donjuan]

this is al very interesting promethius -about the effects of cannabis-

can you show me some internet links?

[prometheus]

A bit late...

No, I didn't get the information from a site. I am not sure which effects you are actually talking about. But you can understand that since cannabis is practically 'legal' here there is also an open debate on its effects and such.

Also, some of the effects are described to me by people that used to use it.

[pianalex]

alcohol and tobacco are both drugs, both ruinous of health, so the whole thing is kinda random in many ways.  if you consider the disastrous effect of prohibition in the us, you do have to wonder whether legalisation and more assertive education wouldnt at least  lower the massive organised crime network.  Also it would remove any of the 'allure' of being outside the law. maybe.

[gyzzzmo]

About current Holland extacy/weed policy:
-In general it are the foreigners, not the Dutch themselves who smoke most weed.
-Lots of trading happens in other countries now because the trading in Holland itself has become very transparant and thus too risky for weed traders.
-Though many countries do negative about dutch policy, their 'drug-police' make good use of all the information that comes from the dutch who have a much clearer view of the drug-industry in holland and surrounding countries.

[henrah]

I'm still mystified that alcohol is more legal than cannabis, despite it's detrimental effects being worse than those of cannabis. I don't understand how a government can allow people to legally become angry and violent and unsafe drivers, and in some cases wife beaters, through the drinking of alcohol. Of course this is a broad generalisation, but is true in the majority of people. Alcohol even eccentuates anger in some people, so someone who would seem angry but doesn't tend to act on it might do if they were drunk. This happens whilst us tokers are sitting back, relaxing and generally behaving, apart from the illegal act of smoking cannabis of course.

Surely obeying and driving under the speed limit in fear of going too fast is better than driving over it and losing the ability of depth and danger awareness? Though this might possibly be stemming from my slight hatrid for alcohol, it still holds truth in my opinion.

I don't remember how long ago I read this, or where from, or even it's truthfullness but: over 10,000 people die every year from alcohol, a very high percentage of that being a direct cause of alcohol; yet only 4 people have died directly from cannabis over the past couple of years (5 I think when I read it), and 3 of them were from vomit inhilation. I can't imagine how much the other guy/gal smoked to die from it, but it must have been a heck of a lot.


Basically I think the streets would be a lot safer if alcohol were illegal. The government are still sending many police to deal with the thousands of drunks in inner city areas that get in fights and other such things after the pubs close and constantly coming up with unique ways of avoiding it, for instance 'all night licenses' These ideas are so stupid when you can completely avoid the problem by criminalising it.

Sometimes I think our government is so silly...

[prometheus]

Henrah, it is called pragmatism. Imagine the problems with making alcohol illegal. Actually in the US it has been tried. In my country about 1 in 15 people have problems with alcohol. And a significant part of them, I cannot remember the number, is a real alcoholist. These people will stay addicted even when you try to make alcohol illegal.

Also imagine the economic consequences. All the companies producing alcholic beverages will continue to exist. These people often have influence on politicians; they lobby.

But, I do not support making it illegal at all. For one the state has to serve the people, it is the tool of the people to govern themselves. Well, at least in a working democracy. This means the government has no role in telling anyone what to drink or not. If people want to intoxicate themselves then, even when they do not have the right, I do not think the state has the right to stop them. Only when the subject touches national health, national safety and national education the government can do something.

Also, alcohol is not inheritly negative. Though I very very rarely consume alcohol I do not it relaxes me. I do not become aggressive. There are many people that have this. A lot of people will just become tired or fall asleep when they drink. This even without drinking too much.

As for the logic. There is none. But there is also no logic in assuming the government operates on logic. No government has or ever will.

[henrah]

I know that there are many cases where alcohol makes people relaxed and passive, but there are also many cases where it makes them angry and violent. With cannabis, this ratio is a lot smaller. In fact, I know many townies who have been aggressive and angry in the past, and now are chilled out and really cool guys now that they are smoking cannabis. I'm not using this as an example to say 'smoke cannabis kids, it's good for you!', but it is certainly better to risk calmness than aggressiveness.

Of course the state doesn't have a right to stop people from intoxicating themselves, but it would surely cut down on the people that do. Many people drink simply because they can, and many people smoke cigarettes simply because they can. One of my dad's friends has been a smoker since he was 16 just because he thought 'hey, I can legally smoke now, so I will'. I don't mind in the least moderation in drinking, and if it were illegal this would certainly be the case as it would be harder to get, thusly stopping the majority of people over indulging because they are able to.

But how will the alcohol producing companies still exist if it were made illegal? Do you mean that they would still operate internationally? That wouldn't be bad, as it would then be up to the person to travel to a different country to drink madly, and they have the right to do so. It will however stop those from drinking just because they are able to, which is the main reason why I don't like it being legal. It is these people that over indulge, and become the violent people on the streets late at night. I actually fear going out to see my friends at night because I don't want to get into a fight from someone seeing me and wanting to fight me, for whatever reason it may be. I don't want to live in fear of people mindlessly attacking me for no reason.

Of course these alcoholics who are truly addicted will stay addicted, but it will be a lot harder for them to supply their addiction, and would seriously cut down on the amount of big time alcoholics because they will have to go out of their way and risk arrest to buy it.

And the subject does touch national safety, as drunk drivers on the road are far more dangerous than stoned drivers. And there are many that are drunk whilst driving, and the accidents can be horrific! An accident caused by drink driving is more likely to cause deaths than an accident caused by stoned driving, and surely it's best to keep the death toll down?

Please keep this discussion going Prometheus, don't simply end it because I seem to refuse to open up to your reasoning. I want to hear more reasons for alcohol to stay legal, if you'd be so kind as to post them
Henrah

[gyzzzmo]

Sorry, i was too lazy to provide evidence for my theory via pubmed or whatever, but for young kids, when something is forbidden, something only gets much more attractive to try out.

[rimv2]

By accident? That's insane. Here it would take more than a year to change a law...

When all drugs are regulated criminal organisations will no longer have an effective way to make money.

When that is done we can try to find out how to make sure as little people use and abuse drugs.

Making any drug legal for personal use is pointless. My country has been the first to do this. People will still have to buy the drugs from criminals.

[edit] Well, it isn't legal according to the letter of the law. I guess this created some confusion. That is because it is confusing. It is hard to understand how something can be both legal and illegal at the same time

Legalized and control.


That's what was done with tobacco and alcohol.

But in today's world the control part is a little difficult.

[henrah]

Well if alcohol and tobacco are allowed to be physically addicted to, why aren't cannabis and other illegal drugs allowed to too? Tobacco is more harmful than cannabis, and it doesn't even make you feel high

[rimv2]

Well if alcohol and tobacco are allowed to be physically addicted to, why aren't cannabis and other illegal drugs allowed to too? Tobacco is more harmful than cannabis, and it doesn't even make you feel high

There are drugs on the market that are "regulated" by prescription, but are far more addictive and dangerous if abused tha a lot of the crap that people buy on the streets.

The illusion of control

Drug abusers will abuse drugs legally or illegally.

Drugs should be a matter of personal not government responsibility.


Ah saying this stuff and ahs not even a druggy