Thread: Mexico and the Drug Wars

I could agree with decriminalization of weed in favor of regularization and education. No sale to minors, quality control and or sale through pharmacy (or home grow). You know, similar to what is done today for alcohol and tobacco to some degree.

I do agree with criminalization of hard drugs though. Personal liberties are one thing, but hard drugs take a toll not only from the person taking them, but also their environment and the people close to them.

Originally Posted by Kees

+1 here. That is the only way to get rid of the problem. We should have the guts to admit we'll never win the war on drugs. Prohibition failed as well. Alcohol is at least as dangerous a drug as many illegally produced substances.

I am with you but my take on it is not the dangerous nature
of drugs. Drugs including alcohol and even tobacco are dangerous.

The larger and more important issue is the serious social problems
that making them illegal causes. I am of a mind that social responsibility
is critical and key.

As goofy as it sounds the "just say no" program has merit.

I chose to say no to with the exception of the occasional
beer a wee dram of scotch and my morning coffee. I am also a realist.
For many folk saying no is not their cup of tea and as long as they
are not driving while under the influence they are welcome
to partake as long as they do not funnel money into
the criminal side of life.

I should go on a little and further acknowledge that many
people flat out need some drugs and I am astounded by
the range and social issues in our society. Now to
get back to life.....

and later.

Originally Posted by Bruno

I could agree with decriminalization of weed in favor of regularization and education. No sale to minors, quality control and or sale through pharmacy (or home grow). You know, similar to what is done today for alcohol and tobacco to some degree.

I do agree with criminalization of hard drugs though. Personal liberties are one thing, but hard drugs take a toll not only from the person taking them, but also their environment and the people close to them.

Criminalize all hard drugs? Like oxycontin, loratab, vicadin, ridilin, etc; etc;, or just the ones that can grow naturally in nature, while leaving all synthetic copies legal? IMO, It is not the drug that causes the problem, it is the abuse of the drug that casues the problem. As long as some people fail to learn how to deal correctly with their problems, they will choose to try and hide from them and they can do that just as easily with legal prescription drugs as they can with illegal illicit drugs, sometimes even easier.


Why cant we choose to use heroin instead of oxycontin, cocaine instead of novacaine, weed instead of valium, oh thats right companies cant patent those. Wouldnt buying and using those substances from third world countries, help those counties more than sending them charity after burning their fields(property)? The poppy growers in afganistan, would be good allies against both the taliban and al-queda, instead we are wanting to team up with the taliban to destroy those farmers, because of our moral high horse. How can those countries help their people, when all those funds that could have been in their budgets are, instead of in the hands of a cartel somewhere? How much power will that money give a cartel, would they have that power if they were selling a legal product? There is absolutely no upside to our war on drugs, it doesnt get rid of the demand, and therefore will never get rid of the supply, and the people who will become in charge of our supply will get richer than they ever could of, for a lesser product than it would have to be if legal.

I meant recreational use of those drugs, not prescribed use.
As to why: you can't easily quit them, you become an addict and you have a very negative influence on society as a whole and your loved ones in particular.

A heroin addict is a sad example of this.

Originally Posted by Bruno

I meant recreational use of those drugs, not prescribed use.
As to why: you can't easily quit them, you become an addict and you have a very negative influence on society as a whole and your loved ones in particular.

A heroin addict is a sad example of this.

I understand your point, and agree to some extent, in that there are people who end up in terrible situations. But I think the drugs issue is too often argued from black and white perspectives. Although drugs can do untold harm to "the person taking them, ... their environment and the people close to them", it is not an inevitable outcome by any means. There are plenty of users of recreational drugs who are able to maintain a balanced lifestyle, which includes family and career.

A heroin addict does indeed lead a tragic life, affecting those closest to them. But so does an alcoholic. Addiction is not an inevitability to all people, and finding it hard to quit also applies to coffee, alcohol, tobacco etc.

In my experience, there is one thing that often seems to lead to a decrease in recreational drug use (though not always)... having a family. Certainly the people I know from university days suddenly seemed to lose interest in recreational drugs not when their career started (lawyers, doctors, managers), not when they got married (spouses can share an interest in recreational drugs), and not when they bought a mortgage, but when they had children.

Which supports my own opinion that the vast majority of people who experiment with recreational drugs are not inevitably trapped in an ever decreasing spiral but are able to recognise the real priorities in life and adjust their behaviour and consumption accordingly.

So what of these people? In the current drugs-on-war policies, they are criminalised, and it diverts valuable police and legal resources dealing with these relatively benign cases. I too am all for a policy which is less about zero tolerance and more akin to how alcohol and tobacco is controlled. You free up resource in policing and the law courts, and you generate more tax revenue. To boot, the drugs supply becomes less adulterated, and is diverted away from the black market.

Should this apply to all classes of drugs? I don't think so. But deciding which drugs should be decriminalised and which should remain outside the law is a question for experts to debate and conclude and NOT politicians as has been shown recently in the UK where policy and laws have been drafted in response to hysterical media reports even though they contrast with the scientific view.

=majurey;579194]I understand your point, and agree to some extent, in that there are people who end up in terrible situations. But I think the drugs issue is too often argued from black and white perspectives. Although drugs can do untold harm to "the person taking them, ... their environment and the people close to them", it is not an inevitable outcome by any means. There are plenty of users of recreational drugs who are able to maintain a balanced lifestyle, which includes family and career.

I agree that this argument is seen as black and white, even though it is not. IMO it seems that as long as a drug comes from a white source the side effects are of no consequence. If we look at recent history, we will find plenty of people dying from prescribed drugs that were used as they were intended to be and were declared safe by a governmental agency. In fact there are more people who die every year from FDA approved drugs than illicit drugs here in the US, granted the number who use prescribed drugs vastly out number illicit drug users, but it spits in the face of the notion that one type of drug is safe, while the other is not.

A heroin addict does indeed lead a tragic life, affecting those closest to them. But so does an alcoholic. Addiction is not an inevitability to all people, and finding it hard to quit also applies to coffee, alcohol, tobacco etc.

Addiction is nothing but an excuse IMO, and only exsists so some can blame an outside source instead of the proper thing to blame, themselves. There is of course, dependency, where a drug replaces your bodies production of a chemical and then it throws your body into a tizzy when you drop the outside source and force the body to start making them for itself again, and then there is also habit, which IMO is the biggest factor. We humans are creatures of habit, once we develop a habit it is very hard to stop, no where near impossible, but it is very hard.

In my experience, there is one thing that often seems to lead to a decrease in recreational drug use (though not always)... having a family. Certainly the people I know from university days suddenly seemed to lose interest in recreational drugs not when their career started (lawyers, doctors, managers), not when they got married (spouses can share an interest in recreational drugs), and not when they bought a mortgage, but when they had children.

IME, the only thing that gets someone to change, is for them to decide to change, by themself for themself. A family might be that reason for some, but it is no where near foolproof and it still allows us to blame something other than ourself.

Which supports my own opinion that the vast majority of people who experiment with recreational drugs are not inevitably trapped in an ever decreasing spiral but are able to recognise the real priorities in life and adjust their behaviour and consumption accordingly.

So what of these people? In the current drugs-on-war policies, they are criminalised, and it diverts valuable police and legal resources dealing with these relatively benign cases. I too am all for a policy which is less about zero tolerance and more akin to how alcohol and tobacco is controlled. You free up resource in policing and the law courts, and you generate more tax revenue. To boot, the drugs supply becomes less adulterated, and is diverted away from the black market.

The governmental control of those products works so good, dont they? Kids still get their hands on them, and people of all ages still abuse them. I am not for any control on any drugs, only the market. Since it is only the market that can control them. As long as there is a demand, there will be a supply, it is our choice where that supply comes from though, people who are trustworthy and law abiding, or those who will do anything to make money and gain power, and that includes governmental agencies. IMO, it is our responsibility to look out for ourselves, as soon as we allow someone else to do so, we are at their mercy, and that hasnt worked so far to keep us safe and I think it is pretty easy to show the opposite is the case.

Should this apply to all classes of drugs? I don't think so. But deciding which drugs should be decriminalised and which should remain outside the law is a question for experts to debate and conclude and NOT politicians as has been shown recently in the UK where policy and laws have been drafted in response to hysterical media reports even though they contrast with the scientific view.

I think it should, does criminalizing something keep it outside society? Has it ever worked to ban something then it just goes away? Did guns go away in london when they became illegal? How about gun crime? Did violent crime end, or did they just find a different weapon, such as knives and bats? Did prohibition of alcohol in the U.S. get rid of it? Has prohibition of drugs worked at all? Marijuana is the biggest cash crop in the U.S., and that is even after it has been illegal for quite some time. I can go into any city, large or small and find any drug I want, if I wanted to, prescription or illicit. How long are we going to keep beating a dead horse? Prohibition has never worked, never will, and we are the definition of idiocy, when we keep doing the same thing we have always done and expect a different result.

I've seen some articles in the main stream recently that the Army will start experimenting with marijuana, LSD and mushrooms for treatment of PTSD in soldiers.

I don't have PTSD (my Dad does from being a twice wounded Vietnam vet does) and I have not been in the military, but I can't think of anything worse in concept in experimenting with LSD and mushrooms for such individuals. That sounds awful if that's true.

Chris L

Originally Posted by AnarchoPhil

I've seen some articles in the main stream recently that the Army will start experimenting with marijuana, LSD and mushrooms for treatment of PTSD in soldiers.

Just look up MK Ultra, the CIA was one of the first to experiment with such things. If the person is 'dosed' unknowingly or in the incorrect setting, horrible consequences can result. I think Ford had to publicly apologize to the family of one government employee who was unknowingly dosed with LSD and committed suicide.
However, in the proper setting, with proper care and information and careful dosing, LSD and especially Psilocybin mushrooms, have been shown to help people overcome all kinds of life debilitating syndromes. It can help terminally ill patients cope with and understand their fate, allowing them to die at peace and without pain, it can help prisoners stay out of jail longer than untreated prisoners if not indefinitely.
The Times just ran that article about the therapeutic benefits of psychedelics. It's encouraging to see it on the front page of a mainstream paper.

Originally Posted by ChrisL

I don't have PTSD (my Dad does from being a twice wounded Vietnam vet does) and I have not been in the military, but I can't think of anything worse in concept in experimenting with LSD and mushrooms for such individuals. That sounds awful if that's true.

Chris L