Mexico Plans to legalize drugs

[Zell's Fists of Fury]

Yes, like I said, I don't regularly smoke, and don't hang out with that crowd, but I know of many people who could get me weed. If I wanted to, I could go smoke out right now. It just ignorant to think that people aren't already using it as if it's legal anyway.

[Alive-Cat]

Well, I believe that people should have freedom, and if they want to abuse those drugs, they'll eventually die, and if they want to be sensible with those drugs, they can, and they'll probably be fine. I think people should be able to make their own decisions.
Thankyou and goodnight! :sing:

[Raistlin]

Well yes, people already abuse it. Obviously. But why bother to make it legal? That will definetly increase usage of it. And new users will have easier access to it.

So what? Why should the government be able to say "you can't do this to yourself?"

[Vincent, Thunder God]

Well yes, people already abuse it. Obviously. But why bother to make it legal? That will definetly increase usage of it. And new users will have easier access to it.

So what? Why should the government be able to say "you can't do this to yourself?"

They're not saying "you can't do this to yourself," they're saying you can do it but it's illegal and it goes against common sense. You get a short period of highness for a whole other sh*tload of side effects. The government isn't trying to be some imaginary thought control government like Orwell's 1984. It's trying to protect health.

Furtheremore, Spaceman Spiff, yes I realize that other drugs are out there and that they're free. I dislike them just as much, but at least pot can be a little less acessable if it's illegal. At least there is a consequence to taking it. Like I said before, this substance abuse doesn't just affect those who take it, in my country it wastes a lot of money while us Canadians pay for health care out of our taxes. Money that could be going to cancer research is being poured into health care for abusers of drugs. Other countries are wasting just as much on it.

And besides, if you don't smoke regularly why go to all the trouble to defend pot? It has bad side effects, costs the government money (and then consequently lets less money go to more important things), and legalizing it does make it significantly easier to access (despite that you continue to try to feebly discount that fact.)

[Dreddz]

At least theres now a reason to go to Mexico.

[escobert]

Well yes, people already abuse it. Obviously. But why bother to make it legal? That will definetly increase usage of it. And new users will have easier access to it.

So what? Why should the government be able to say "you can't do this to yourself?"

They're not saying "you can't do this to yourself," they're saying you can do it but it's illegal and it goes against common sense. You get a short period of highness for a whole other sh*tload of side effects. The government isn't trying to be some imaginary thought control government like Orwell's 1984. It's trying to protect health.

Furtheremore, Spaceman Spiff, yes I realize that other drugs are out there and that they're free. I dislike them just as much, but at least pot can be a little less acessable if it's illegal. At least there is a consequence to taking it. Like I said before, this substance abuse doesn't just affect those who take it, in my country it wastes a lot of money while us Canadians pay for health care out of our taxes. Money that could be going to cancer research is being poured into health care for abusers of drugs. Other countries are wasting just as much on it.

And besides, if you don't smoke regularly why go to all the trouble to defend pot? It has bad side effects, costs the government money (and then consequently lets less money go to more important things), and legalizing it does make it significantly easier to access (despite that you continue to try to feebly discount that fact.)

did you just not read my post or something? Alcohol and tabacco both have side effects but are legal. why are they so much better then pot or shroom? Which are both natrually grown.

[nik0tine]

The government isn't trying to be some imaginary thought control government like Orwell's 1984. It's trying to protect health.

And that's wrong.

Furtheremore, Spaceman Spiff, yes I realize that other drugs are out there and that they're free. I dislike them just as much, but at least pot can be a little less acessable if it's illegal.

I don't think it will make a whole lot of difference either way.

Like I said before, this substance abuse doesn't just affect those who take it, in my country it wastes a lot of money while us Canadians pay for health care out of our taxes. Money that could be going to cancer research is being poured into health care for abusers of drugs. Other countries are wasting just as much on it.

My country wastes billions of dollars fighting a ridiculously immoral drug war. If money is what you're concerned with then you're on the wrong side of this debate.

And besides, if you don't smoke regularly why go to all the trouble to defend pot?

We're not defending pot, we're defending freedom. I can defend pot in a different thread.

It has bad side effects

It's side effects are no worse than McDonalds' side effects.

costs the government money (and then consequently lets less money go to more important things)

But you're wrong. If drugs were legal the government would be spending a whole hell of a lot less money. My government would save billions every year on the drug war, and it would save a ton of money by not throwing people in jail who have done nothing wrong. Plus, the government would be able to tax the drugs and actually make money.

and legalizing it does make it significantly easier to access (despite that you continue to try to feebly discount that fact.)

If drugs were legal people would have access to safe drugs. Right now people buy drugs from unsafe, shady people. You don't know what you are getting. If, however, drugs were legal, we could simply buy them at the pharmacy and we'd be 100% certain that we were getting clean, safe drugs. Our marijuana would never be laced, we would never be buying rat poison, etc. etc.

The most important thing, however, is that it will reduce crime. People get murdered because drugs are illegal. If drugs were legal, nobody would buy unsafe drugs from unsafe people (ie, gangs) and they would instead buy them from safe places like pharmacies. Gangs will lose all of their drug related revenue and they will be severely financially handicapped.

There is absolutely no reason not to legalize drugs.

[Vincent, Thunder God]

The government isn't trying to be some imaginary thought control government like Orwell's 1984. It's trying to protect health.

And that's wrong.

Furtheremore, Spaceman Spiff, yes I realize that other drugs are out there and that they're free. I dislike them just as much, but at least pot can be a little less acessable if it's illegal.

I don't think it will make a whole lot of difference either way.

Like I said before, this substance abuse doesn't just affect those who take it, in my country it wastes a lot of money while us Canadians pay for health care out of our taxes. Money that could be going to cancer research is being poured into health care for abusers of drugs. Other countries are wasting just as much on it.

My country wastes billions of dollars fighting a ridiculously immoral drug war. If money is what you're concerned with then you're on the wrong side of this debate.

And besides, if you don't smoke regularly why go to all the trouble to defend pot?

We're not defending pot, we're defending freedom. I can defend pot in a different thread.

It has bad side effects

It's side effects are no worse than McDonalds' side effects.

costs the government money (and then consequently lets less money go to more important things)

But you're wrong. If drugs were legal the government would be spending a whole hell of a lot less money. My government would save billions every year on the drug war, and it would save a ton of money by not throwing people in jail who have done nothing wrong. Plus, the government would be able to tax the drugs and actually make money.

and legalizing it does make it significantly easier to access (despite that you continue to try to feebly discount that fact.)

If drugs were legal people would have access to safe drugs. Right now people buy drugs from unsafe, shady people. You don't know what you are getting. If, however, drugs were legal, we could simply buy them at the pharmacy and we'd be 100% certain that we were getting clean, safe drugs. Our marijuana would never be laced, we would never be buying rat poison, etc. etc.

The most important thing, however, is that it will reduce crime. People get murdered because drugs are illegal. If drugs were legal, nobody would buy unsafe drugs from unsafe people (ie, gangs) and they would instead buy them from safe places like pharmacies. Gangs will lose all of their drug related revenue and they will be severely financially handicapped.

There is absolutely no reason not to legalize drugs.

I suppose you have made some good points here. Some of that information I had not yet fully thought of.

But you're first repsonse... how is it wrong to protect health? And don't you give me that "freedom" bull, you and I both know that sometimes people with the actual knowlege, like a government, can make better decisions then people with a death wish, abusing drugs.

And as for your second reponse, just because I'm concerned about my government being able to use my tax dollars effectively doesn't mean I'm in the wrong debate. We're debating about whether or not drugs should be legalized. I thought that was obvious.

And with your third point, yes, freedom is extremely important. But if humanity has no commen sense restrictions placed on it it will be over-run with corruption. We already know that from observing our history.

In your fourth point, you state that McDonald's health risks are no worse than pot's. I will not argue that McDonald's is highly caustic and a large health risk. But I would rather (in theory) eat high-calorie food than lose my brain cells to pot!

Otherwise your other points have given me a different perspective, and I appreciate that.

But to say that there are no bad effects to legalizing drugs... that is far from the truth.

[nik0tine]

But you're first repsonse... how is it wrong to protect health? And don't you give me that "freedom" bull, you and I both know that sometimes people with the actual knowlege, like a government, can make better decisions then people with a death wish, abusing drugs.

Sorry, but I'm going to give you that "freedom bull" because it's the truth. A government may be able to make a better decision, but it's my decision, not theirs. Besides, 'better' is subjective and it isn't right to force your subjective views on someone else.

Otherwise your other points have given me a different perspective, and I appreciate that.

Thanks.

[fire_of_avalon]

You can't make sweeping statements suggesting it's wrong for governments to protect public health. If governments had no laws concerning public health... I mean do I really need to give examples? But this is just me nitpicking.

I think it's really stupid to legalize highly addictive drugs that druglords are still going to produce anyway, and kill people over anyway. It's stupid to legalize marijuana too, because it doesn't make economic sense. If marijuana was legal, nobody would go to a pharmacy and buy it at outrageously inflated prices. They'd grow it and smoke it. It isn't like tobacco, which is hard to produce on one's own and necessitates a manufactural intermediary.

Outside of that regard, however, I'm actually pretty pro-legalizing marijuana. I think, however, it should be on legal par with alcohol and tobacco, being legal only for adults, and I feel that doing stupid things while stoned, like driving, should come under the same consequences as drunk driving.

And before anyone says anything, don't try to tell me that it's safer to drive while stoned as opposed as to driving while drunk, because that is complete crap.

[NeoCracker]

The government isn't trying to be some imaginary thought control government like Orwell's 1984. It's trying to protect health.

And that's wrong.

Furtheremore, Spaceman Spiff, yes I realize that other drugs are out there and that they're free. I dislike them just as much, but at least pot can be a little less acessable if it's illegal.

I don't think it will make a whole lot of difference either way.

Like I said before, this substance abuse doesn't just affect those who take it, in my country it wastes a lot of money while us Canadians pay for health care out of our taxes. Money that could be going to cancer research is being poured into health care for abusers of drugs. Other countries are wasting just as much on it.

My country wastes billions of dollars fighting a ridiculously immoral drug war. If money is what you're concerned with then you're on the wrong side of this debate.

And besides, if you don't smoke regularly why go to all the trouble to defend pot?

We're not defending pot, we're defending freedom. I can defend pot in a different thread.

It has bad side effects

It's side effects are no worse than McDonalds' side effects.

costs the government money (and then consequently lets less money go to more important things)

But you're wrong. If drugs were legal the government would be spending a whole hell of a lot less money. My government would save billions every year on the drug war, and it would save a ton of money by not throwing people in jail who have done nothing wrong. Plus, the government would be able to tax the drugs and actually make money.

and legalizing it does make it significantly easier to access (despite that you continue to try to feebly discount that fact.)

If drugs were legal people would have access to safe drugs. Right now people buy drugs from unsafe, shady people. You don't know what you are getting. If, however, drugs were legal, we could simply buy them at the pharmacy and we'd be 100% certain that we were getting clean, safe drugs. Our marijuana would never be laced, we would never be buying rat poison, etc. etc.

The most important thing, however, is that it will reduce crime. People get murdered because drugs are illegal. If drugs were legal, nobody would buy unsafe drugs from unsafe people (ie, gangs) and they would instead buy them from safe places like pharmacies. Gangs will lose all of their drug related revenue and they will be severely financially handicapped.

There is absolutely no reason not to legalize drugs.

Aside from the Mcdonalds comment being an exageration, this sounds right.

[Raistlin]

You can't make sweeping statements suggesting it's wrong for governments to protect public health. If governments had no laws concerning public health... I mean do I really need to give examples? But this is just me nitpicking.

It's not "public health." "Public health" is am imaginary concept that doesn't actually exist. The only question is: should the government be allowed to dictate to an individual person what he can and cannot do with his own body, when it directly harms no one but himself?

I think it's really stupid to legalize highly addictive drugs that druglords are still going to produce anyway, and kill people over anyway.

There will be less killing if it wasn't stuck in the black market.

It's stupid to legalize marijuana too, because it doesn't make economic sense. If marijuana was legal, nobody would go to a pharmacy and buy it at outrageously inflated prices. They'd grow it and smoke it. It isn't like tobacco, which is hard to produce on one's own and necessitates a manufactural intermediary.

So, in order for things to be legal... it has to help the government? Whatever happened to individual rights?

I see you're pro-legalization, but I disagree with the age restrictions. The government shouldn't raise kids for the parents. If the parents say a kid can have some alcohol when he's 17 or 18, why should the government be able to say "that's illegal because the kid's too young?" Again, why should the government be able to say what an individual (young or old) does with his own body is wrong?

[Loony BoB]

Drugs disgust me, so I think this is a bad idea. You should never take mind-altering drugs without a good medical reason.

EDIT: In reply to Raist's post above, there are a lot of parents that are just plain stupid and frankly unworthy of being parents, and as far as I'm concerned I'd rather the government make that kind of decision for them. Alcohol, drugs, sex, etc. should be controlled where possible for the sake of those without intelligent parents who know what's best for their children.

[fire_of_avalon]

There will not be less of a black market just because something is legalized. If heroin were legalized and made pharmaceutically available, people wouldn't go to the pharmacy to get it because it would be expensive. Drug dealers would minimally lower their prices, or obtain cheaper, deadlier heroin, and the same junkies would go to the same dealers for their fix. As a result there would be remain no regulation of it.

Besides, another important aspect of legalization of anything is putting it into the control of the government, letting them regulate who, what, how much, when and why. They do that already, just to a much stricter degree.

And that commentary about economic reasons behind keeping it illegal wasn't an argument on whether or not it should be legal, it was just a reason why it isn't legal.

And I said that if it were legalized, it should be made available only to adults. If said adults chose to give their older teen a hit, it would be akin to adults giving their older teen a glass of wine with a fancy meal. Also, I'm speaking in the context of what should define an adult; 18+ not 21+. The drinking age should be lowered, imo, but that is another debate.

Also, I agree with BoB on the whole parent thing. Yeah uh huh!

[Shaun]

Very stupid.