It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Mexican Legislature Approves Pot, Cocaine, Ecstacy & Heroin for Personal Use

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 28 2006 @ 03:31 PM
link   
The Mexican Senate and House have approved a bill that would legalize posession of small amounts of marijuana, coc aine, heroin and ecstacy for personal use. All that remains is for the President to sign the bill, which his office has indicated he is likely to do.
 



news.yahoo.com
MEXICO CITY - Mexico's Congress approved a bill Friday that would legalize drug possession for personal use — decriminalizing the carrying of small amounts of marijuana, coc aine and even heroin.

The only step remaining is the signature of the president, whose office indicates he will sign the measure, despite the implications for the war on drugs.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


The war on drugs is a farce, especially when so much of its resources are diverted in prosecuting users of marijuana who are responsible for far less crimes as are users of alcohol and whose health is impaired far less than by nicotine or alcohol, and marijuana is far less addictive than these substances. Gateway drug arguments are ludicrous in light of the fact that every 5 year old is introduced to the world of mind altering substances with their first sip of a caffeine-containing beverage.

However, that said, I wonder if this bill goes just a step too far. Decriminalization of marijuana for personal use is one thing, a la Amsterdam, or the experimental zone in London, but... heroin and coc aine? Is this going too far? I've always been of the mind that if it comes directly from mother nature, we should be free to do with it as we please... but... Ecstacy, for example, how is this defined? Is every policeman going to test pills to see if they are MDMA or something illegal or, is this effectively the end of all drug enforcement below a certain scale in Mexico? I'd be very interested to see the text of the bill itself. Indeed I still am not quite sure I believe the story, yet there it is.

What about the implications this will have on areas north (America) and south (such as Colombia)? Will Mexico simply become a transshipment hub for drugs produced south to move north, being illegal in both areas? Is Mexico saying, "look, American, drugs that cause you problems come from south America, you've got the problem, you deal with it, we're not going to play first line anymore with drugs headed to your market, not ours.."? Will this bill, if signed, do more harm to surrounding regions than the good it does to Mexico, or should the other regions follow suit?

Is Mexico surrendering, or playing it smart? Or merely responding to popular will? Do they have a choice in terms of allocation of resources, or is this political brinksmanship? Does the president really intend to sign the bill? Passing through the legislature alone- both houses- is no insignificant thing in and of itself.

[edit on 28-4-2006 by koji_K]

[edit on 28-4-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]




posted on May, 2 2006 @ 12:12 PM
link   
This is just a ploy to cause more problems between the Mexican people and Americans.
The gov's of the 2 countries have been controled by the same people for awhile but they need this small conflict so they can take more of the amercan's rights away.
In no time at all there will be a small war going on in the USA and people will be paying less attenison to the war over sea's.


df1

posted on May, 2 2006 @ 01:01 PM
link   
An individual should be able to go to the walmart pharmacy and purchase any drug desired whether for medical or recreational purposes. It is none of governments business what substance an individual puts into his or her body. Either you own your body or government owns it. Mexico is on the right track, but they still have not gone far enough. U.S. drug laws are straight out of the middle ages in that we have the police (DEA) dictating which drugs are available even for medical use. This should outrage every american citizen.


[edit on 2-5-2006 by df1]



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by df1
An individual should be able to go to the walmart pharmacy and purchase any drug desired whether for medical or recreational purposes. It is none of governments business what substance an individual puts into his or her body. Either you own your body or government owns it. Mexico is on the right track, but they still have not gone far enough. U.S. drug laws are straight out of the middle ages in that we have the police (DEA) dictating which drugs are available even for medical use. This should outrage every american citizen.


[edit on 2-5-2006 by df1]


I've seen first hand the effects of oxycontin's and dilaudid's if you could buy this crap at any wal-mart we'd have a real problem on our hands. the world doesn't need anymore junkies.

would you let your friend hit himself in the face with a hammer if he wasn't hurting anyone else??

and what about antibiotics??? ever think of that?
antibiotic missuse leads to antibiotic resistant bacteria and viruses.

That being said I do think pot should be legal, and for more reasons than me staying high. Canabis seeds make a really good flour for bread, you can also get hemp oil that has many uses, use hemp to make paper, etc,etc.

but there's some drugs that we should not have open access to.

please keep this in mind


[edit on 2-5-2006 by EvilGoat]



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by EvilGoat

I've seen first hand the effects of oxycontin's and dilaudid's if you could buy this crap at any wal-mart we'd have a real problem on our hands. the world doesn't need anymore junkies.

would you let your friend hit himself in the face with a hammer if he wasn't hurting anyone else??

and what about antibiotics??? ever think of that?
antibiotic missuse leads to antibiotic resistant bacteria and viruses.

That being said I do think pot should be legal, and for more reasons than me staying high. Canabis seeds make a really good flour for bread, you can also get hemp oil that has many uses, use hemp to make paper, etc,etc.

but there's some drugs that we should not have open access to.

please keep this in mind


[edit on 2-5-2006 by EvilGoat]


Goat, antibiotics are legal!
Anyone can get their hands on what ever antibiotic they THINK they need and I do agree with you that is probably the ONLY drug that can be controlled due to mutations of bacteria due to abuse.

As for pain killers and "illegal drugs", those are regulated for one thing and one thing ONLY, PROFIT.

The government has control over the "illegal drugs" for their own profit and the pain killer compnays want their drugs controlled so they can charge more for them.

Thats the bottom line. When will people wake up?!

This is illegal search and seisure here people!

On top of it all the government is on the verge of creating MASS prisons!
Drug users do not belong in prisons for 10+ years. The sentencing is as long as it is so the street price remains high so the FED and DEA can make its profit via confiscation of EVERYTHING the "illegal drug user" owns.

This is sick! When will the drug war end?!


Edit*


Originally posted by APeaceParty
Anyone can get their hands on what ever antibiotic they THINK they need and I do agree with you that is probably the ONLY drug that can be controlled due to mutations of bacteria due to abuse.


Anyone can get their hands on what ever antibiotic they THINK they need and I do agree with you that is probably the ONLY drug that SHOULD be controlled due to mutations of bacteria due to abuse


[edit on 2-5-2006 by APeaceParty]



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by df1
An individual should be able to go to the walmart pharmacy and purchase any drug desired whether for medical or recreational purposes. It is none of governments business what substance an individual puts into his or her body. Either you own your body or government owns it. Mexico is on the right track, but they still have not gone far enough. U.S. drug laws are straight out of the middle ages in that we have the police (DEA) dictating which drugs are available even for medical use. This should outrage every american citizen.


[edit on 2-5-2006 by df1]


Actually it is my buisness because when the drugs cause people that do not have insurance or means to pay to use the medical system in the US it costs me money in the form of taxes and higher medical costs. Drugs also cause people to make bad choices to harm others. Such as chosing to drive while intoxicated and then killing me in a accident.

If there was a way for people to do drugs without ever harming or effecting other people then and only then would it not be the buisness of the government to regulate/control drugs.

X



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xeven

Actually it is my buisness because when the drugs cause people that do not have insurance or means to pay to use the medical system in the US it costs me money in the form of taxes and higher medical costs. Drugs also cause people to make bad choices to harm others. Such as chosing to drive while intoxicated and then killing me in a accident.

If there was a way for people to do drugs without ever harming or effecting other people then and only then would it not be the buisness of the government to regulate/control drugs.

X



More people cause accidents under influence of alcohol than they EVER will under any other drug EVEN if the drugs were legal. Face it alcohol is one of the most dangerous drugs to drive under next to '___' and yet alcohol remains legal.

Also, I must say, I do agree with the sentencing for DUI under ANY drug should be treated as is.

*I would like to add that in theory...*

...in the future the (if technology and humanity continues to grow) cars will only become easiter to drive and DUI issues will become less and less of a problem.

In theory and in hope. *APP*

[edit on 2-5-2006 by APeaceParty]



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 08:59 PM
link   
It is too much to hope the Red State types can ever get their heads around this honest, low cost approach to drugs. They screwed America with the 18th Amendment and now they are screwing America again with the failed draconian and racist War on Drugs. Thank you Mexico, for showing us Gringos the way. This is the first step to taking back our cities! Let's hope Washington can learn from Mexico City, DF.

Viva Zapata!

PS. Jacksonville just recorded its 46th murder for 2006! Thank you 2nd Amend types. It's working!




[edit on 5/2/2006 by donwhite]



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 09:09 PM
link   
I have a feeling that this issue could well be "the other shoe" to drop in South America, at least as far as the U.S. is concerned.

The first shoe being the nationalization of various oil sectors in the region:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

A brief google search reveals plenty of evidence that other leaders in the region support Mexico's move and have been considering doing the same themselves.

Maybe it's the third shoe as regards Mexico, if the immigrant protests continue? We live in interesting times!




[edit on 2-5-2006 by koji_K]



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 09:24 PM
link   
Do we really another recipe for more drug addicts and more insane, jealous competition between drug dealers?


Already Mexico is enduring with out of control violent drug cartels, bribery and corruption are rampart in the local law authorities.



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 09:27 PM
link   
If drugs were legal the only competetion would be between corperations!

Wake up! The government is making BIG $ from the illegal drug trade and in the process its creating a lot of crime and a lot more jails.

[edit on 2-5-2006 by APeaceParty]



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 09:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by APeaceParty
More people cause accidents under influence of alcohol than they EVER will under any other drug EVEN if the drugs were legal. Face it alcohol is one of the most dangerous drugs to drive under next to '___' and yet alcohol remains legal.


Alcohol is not a mind-altering drug. It's a sedative drug, it only impairs mental and physical functions when consumed too much. Alcoholic addiction is a common symptom associating with alcohol as a sedative drug but not as strong as the stronger illegal drugs such as opium, coc aine or heroin which these makes people more likely addictive to it than any alcoholic beverage.

I used to drink a lot of alcoholic beverages when I was younger but I've never felt any "addiction" to it (compulsive behavior such as needing to drink one more taste of alcoholic drink and get high a bit). When I drunk too much, I noticed that I was just too sedated and tired and didn't feel a need to drink another one. Maybe alcoholic consumption and the effects mean differently to people. Often times, depression, anxiety disorder or serious psychological disorders has been known as the causes of alcoholic addiction (to numb the mental, emotional and/or psychological pains).

The point I wanted to say there are different types of drugs that goes from safe to dangerous. It all depends on how each drug is made and processed from scratch or refinement. Alcohol is not as dangerous or seriously addictive as any other more dangerous, riskier or highly addictive drug.

Alcohol do not force people to be drunk. People who drink too much alcoholic beverages make themselves drunk and could put themselves and others in harm's way. It's just a question of a very poor personal choice and decision-making with little or no thought of consequence(s).

I side with Xeven: drug addiction is a very costly medicinal and personal health issue. Too costly for some, if not most, state governments to afford on long-term basis.



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 09:58 PM
link   
The APP firmly believs that "drugs" and all drugs in general must be legalized for the evolution of man kind.

We must not forget when the U.S. government held amendment 18 which of course did not hold. The government at this time tried to turn alcohol into an illegal drug trade.

The illegal drug trade is a profit for the government and the APP firmly believes that all drugs must be legalized for the evolution of man.



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 10:10 PM
link   
One must be careful with terms.

In the strictest sense, all the aforementioned substances are "mind-altering," although if one is using the term sedative to distinguish from the term "mind-altering" (a false distinction, IMO) one must keep in mind that coc aine and heroin are stimulates and sedatives themselves and so, according to that distinction, not mind-altering. But really, they are all mind-altering. Have eight shots of tequila and tell me if your mind isn't altered!

Cocaine, alcohol, and heroin are all physically addictive, as determined by tests based on whether or not rats will self-administer and the existance of physically measurable withdrawl symptoms (such as vomiting, lack of muscular control, or death). Heroin and pure form opiates have only one rival in this regard, topping the list alongside nicotine. Marijuana comes near the bottom of the list. (My source for that list is my old textbook, the 5th edition of Carlson's "Physiology of Behavior").

Psychological addictiveness is a different form of addiction, and any drug or substance can become psychologically addictive. This is addiction based on a percieved or habituated dependence rather than pure biological craving.

Using whatever categories, our drug laws in their current form do not make sense. We have highly physically addictive mind-altering substances which are legal, and outlaw non-physically addictive substances. We allow substances which cause great numbers of crimes, but disallow those which cause few to no crimes. We allow substances which are responsible for huge amounts of deaths, but forbid those which are not. And we spend BILLIONS letting this silliness continue!

[edit on 2-5-2006 by koji_K]



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by koji_K
One must be careful with terms.

In the strictest sense, all the aforementioned substances are "mind-altering," although if one is using the term sedative to distinguish from the term "mind-altering" (a false distinction, IMO) one must keep in mind that coc aine and heroin are stimulates and sedatives themselves and so, according to that distinction, not mind-altering. But really, they are all mind-altering. Have eight shots of tequila and tell me if your mind isn't altered!

Cocaine, alcohol, and heroin are all physically addictive, as determined by tests based on whether or not rats will self-administer and the existance of physically measurable withdrawl symptoms (such as vomiting, lack of muscular control, or death). Heroin and pure form opiates have only one rival in this regard, topping the list alongside nicotine. Marijuana comes near the bottom of the list. (My source for that list is my old textbook, the 5th edition of Carlson's "Physiology of Behavior").

Psychological addictiveness is a different form of addiction, and any drug or substance can become psychologically addictive. This is addiction based on a percieved or habituated dependence rather than pure biological craving.

Using whatever categories, our drug laws in their current form do not make sense. We have highly physically addictive mind-altering substances which are legal, and outlaw non-physically addictive substances. We allow substances which cause great numbers of crimes, but disallow those which cause few to no crimes. We allow substances which are responsible for huge amounts of deaths, but forbid those which are not. And we spend BILLIONS letting this silliness continue!


The APP agrees with you. You are right on your facts and your right it doesn't make sense at all. The drug war is an illegal act.

It is agreed that this war is very controversial and wasteful but the fact that you have mistaken is this:


Originally posted by koji_KAnd we spend BILLIONS letting this silliness continue!


The fact is that OUR (the USA) government uses billions of TAX payers dollars
to finance this war while at the same time the goverment, minaly being the federal reserve department and the drug enforcment agency (which makes much less thanthe FRD) are the real profiteers behind this war.

The Federal Reserve Department are the brains behind the war ever since around 1915 when they were established and began to seek new profits.

It must be added*

The physical addiction of many drugs is indeniable. Many drugs are physically addictive. Examples would be morphine and nicotine both of which I would like to add are LEGAL and physically addictive. The reason that these two drugs are NOT illegal is that:

#1 Morphine was created as an allternative for the much needed ILLEGAL heroine that was used for many years as a major pain sedative.

#2 Nicotine is already controlled by massive corporations that would NEVER allow their drug to be listed as illegal.

*The term physically addictive is a synonym in its own kind of way by the way we as a society define "physically addictive".




[edit on 2-5-2006 by APeaceParty]


df1

posted on May, 2 2006 @ 10:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by EvilGoat
would you let your friend hit himself in the face with a hammer...

Id trust my friend to own a hammer and to use it as it benefits him best. You dont even trust your friend to own the hammer.


Originally posted by Xeven
If there was a way for people to do drugs without ever harming or effecting other people then and only then would it not be the buisness of the government to regulate/control drugs.

No way exists to do anything without having an impact on other people. Anyone driving a car effects other people , surely you wouldnt suggest banning the automobile? Making all drugs legal would make you safer because the price of drugs would be reduced, thus the users wouldnt need to rob businesses or break into my home and car. This translates into less crime and fewer taxes needed for law enforcement. My health care costs would be reduced because I could purchase the medication I need without paying an outrageous price for a doctor to write me a permission note. Our senior citizens could buy medicine from anyplace they could get the best price.

Unless you live in a plastic bubble your actions are going to effect someone else and their actions are going to effect you. This being the case, I trust individuals to make reasonable decisions more than I trust government to so. Obviously you feel otherwise.



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 10:59 PM
link   
Along with heroin, pot, and xtc; '___', amphetimines(including meth), and peyote(like it was ever illegal there anyway) are included.

The fact that billions of tax dollars are constantly being spent on the US's drug war and the illegal trug trade is multi-billion dollar business makes me believe that some of those who make the laws are involved and getting huge amonts of money from it.

Small amounts of drugs should be decriminalized, there is no way busting someone of the bottom of the drug chain helps anyone. That person will have to spend more than the average person can afford on court costs, if the have a steady job the risk loosing their source of income, and if they are well off they will just get a good lawyer to get them out of trouble. People in all walks of life use illegal drugs and no law is going to stop it. he court system is the one who is profiting here, and the prison system is overcrowded with non-violent drug offenders who can't buy their way out.

Cigarettes, beer, and lottery tickets are the best selling items at a convenient store in a low income area, lord knows they should be spending their money on other things like food and clothes for their kids. The Man's sytem preys on peoples vulnerability especially those who cant afford it.

The pharmaceudical companies are good enough to make a synthetic form of heroin in Oxycontin and there are millions of people who seek out someone who will write a Rx for the stuff, some because they are addicted, most to sell on the black market.

This is the right move for Mexico and I am sure South American countries will follow. Hopefully America will wake up and see how the have been decieved and how evil the war on drugs is.



posted on May, 3 2006 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by EvilGoat
This is just a ploy to cause more problems between the Mexican people and Americans.


Actually, I think it's a ploy to increase the tourist trade myself. Pretty clever if you ask me.


Let's keep in mind though, I do believe the law still prohibits the sale of these things, so you kind of have a supply problem, in that to get it someone has to do something illegal. Of course, I'm sure we can all see ways around that one already, but still.



posted on May, 3 2006 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by koji_K
In the strictest sense, all the aforementioned substances are "mind-altering," although if one is using the term sedative to distinguish from the term "mind-altering" (a false distinction, IMO) one must keep in mind that coc aine and heroin are stimulates and sedatives themselves and so, according to that distinction, not mind-altering. But really, they are all mind-altering. Have eight shots of tequila and tell me if your mind isn't altered!


But isn't taking too much of such drugs that can affect the mind which also control the rest of bodily functions and affecting behaviors? I'm trying to clarify what is the actual meaning of "mind-altering". Is it to "alter" the mind's mental and neural functions which then affect the rest of the body and psychological behaviors at some points or just "altering" the mind by going or feeling high and sedated?


Originally posted by koji_KUsing whatever categories, our drug laws in their current form do not make sense. We have highly physically addictive mind-altering substances which are legal, and outlaw non-physically addictive substances. We allow substances which cause great numbers of crimes, but disallow those which cause few to no crimes. We allow substances which are responsible for huge amounts of deaths, but forbid those which are not. And we spend BILLIONS letting this silliness continue!


Perhaps. On one side, the war on drugs is silly, expensive and unnecessary and on the other side, the war on drugs is an expensive necessity to control the various drug trades. If you look back at history on such drugs, the problems and the impacts on people, you have to weigh whether the war on drugs is necessary or stupid. Uninformed people or people who have never experience any addiction to drugs generally think the war on drugs is stupid and wasteful. Informed and experienced people who have seen the affects of such drugs upon people might see the necessity of fighting the drug trades in order to reduce future addiction, avoid future personal pains or losses as much as they can. There are always two sides to this "war on drugs" debate.



posted on May, 3 2006 @ 07:47 PM
link   
if they approve this legilature mexico is going to be an even worse place to be. That just means all the locals will be all messed up. What the hell are they thinking! Geesh!




top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join