Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Mexico Legalizes Drug Possession
NYT ^ | August 21, 2009 | AP

Posted on 08/21/2009 2:53:19 AM PDT by SolidWood

MEXICO CITY (AP) - Mexico enacted a controversial law on Thursday decriminalizing possession of small amounts of marijuana, cocaine, heroin and other drugs while encouraging government-financed treatment for drug dependency free of charge.

The law sets out maximum "personal use" amounts for drugs, also including LSD and methamphetamine. People detained with those quantities will no longer face criminal prosecution; the law goes into effect on Friday.

(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Mexico
KEYWORDS: aliens; amnesty; cocaine; commonsense; drugcartels; drugs; drugtourism; drugtrafficking; givemeliberty; heroin; idiotalert; immigration; legalizeddrugs; lping; lsd; marijuana; meth; mexico; mrleroymovessouth; potheads; stuckonstupid; vivalarevolucion; wod
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220 ... 261-278 next last
To: dcwusmc; donna; Loud Mime; ChrisInAR
Perhaps this quote will ring home:

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. ---C.S. Lewis

There is absolutely no greater tyranny than the Moralist Statist. They will happily petition Government to deprive you of any liberty or choice that you may freely make on your own, that affects only onesself, just to satisfy their own endorphine addictions. Endorphines? Yes...the endorphines which are released by the endocrine when they feel the 'good' they are doing, whether it be for themselves, or for 'society', or even for their own faith.

It's little different than those who enact liberalism for the same purpose...ie: pass laws to take from one, to give to another, so that one feels good about their own 'contribution', and what they are doing for the 'greater good'...yet who rarely give themselves.

Read Thomas Sowell - The Vision of the Annointed. Lays it out pretty plainly...

I'm not saying those feeling or endorphines are a bad thing...but they are when abused. And usually not for the abuser...
181 posted on 08/21/2009 6:34:11 PM PDT by bamahead (Avoid self-righteousness like the devil- nothing is so self-blinding. -- B.H. Liddell Hart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: BearArms; bamahead

Your objections to the WoD, if I understand you correctly, are twofold:

1. Do-gooders are prone to tyranny, and ought not to be permitted to restrict our liberties.

2. The WoD, being a federal project, is tyrannical (not to mention unconstitutional.)

Is that a fair assessment? If so, let me ask you both (and anybody else still reading this thread) whether you would object to letting local communities decide the legality question for themselves a la “dry/wet counties”?


182 posted on 08/21/2009 6:52:46 PM PDT by LearsFool ("Thou shouldst not have been old, till thou hadst been wise.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: SolidWood
So, Mexico has figured out that it is not a good idea to create a black market.

If the USA ever figures that out, it will ruin my retirement plan.

I intend to smuggle cigarettes, toilet paper, transfats, booze, incandescent light bulbs, Yo-Yo's, SUV's or anything else our lords and masters care to ban or tax.

If the USA follows this lead, I may have to work the rest of my life.

183 posted on 08/21/2009 6:59:22 PM PDT by elkfersupper (Member of the Original Defiant Class)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: elkfersupper
the smuggler was getting richer each time he crossed the border, judging by the splendor of the refinements he wore.

The border patrol checked each time, searched his person, but could not find anything on him or on the donkey that he was leading.

Finally, one day, when the smuggler and agent were both retired, and having a drink at the cafe, the agent asked him,"I always knew you were smuggling, but could never catch you in the act. Just what was it you were smuggling?"

The retired smuggler took a swig off his drink, and paused for effect...."Donkeys."

184 posted on 08/21/2009 7:04:34 PM PDT by going hot (Happiness is a Momma Deuce)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog
You ended your sentence with a preposition.

According to ONDCP, that is a sign of drug abuse.

Go down to your local police station and turn yourself in.

185 posted on 08/21/2009 7:05:47 PM PDT by elkfersupper (Member of the Original Defiant Class)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: going hot
I love smugglers.

So does Walter E. Williams.

http://townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2000/08/01/three_cheers_for_smugglers

186 posted on 08/21/2009 7:13:45 PM PDT by elkfersupper (Member of the Original Defiant Class)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: LearsFool

Though I disagree with the premise as a whole of restricting individual liberty, I do have a belief in the rights of communities and find the tyranny of the minority just as oppressive.

Typically the right of the community to set it’s own public standards does not necessarily interfere directly with the rights of one in privcy to do what he wishes, so as long as it does not harm another, or others. Taking drugs while sitting in your own home does not harm society in any way, as long as the taker is a responsible person. The exact same logic applies now with the use of alcohol, only difference is it is legally available . There may be things that aren’t 100% kosher with the law, but you can do in the privacy of your home without creating a societal disruption that would draw the ire of the law.

But we’re not at the point where government cameras are installed in your home to see what you’re doing at all times. Nor does the ‘civillian security force’ knock on your door every now and then to ‘see how you’re doing’...do you want to see us go there?

Of course, I have my subtle differences which break from the overall tone of the above affirmation of the rights of the community. For example, my belief that a privately owned business such as a restaurant or bar that resides in a community which has banned smoking is restricted from catering to that clientele altogether...for the ‘greater good’ or for ‘public health’. A private business should be permitted to afford its customers and guests the environment that they want, without government dictates. Clients who don’t want such an environment are free to choose another establishment.

But, regulating something like wet/dry at the Federal level is a disaster. History has proven such, and in my opinion continues to prove it with the WoSD (War on Some Drugs) that it is waging against it’s citizenry, and communities.

Not to mention it is an excuse and abused and often results in the most tragic deprivation of the general liberty of American citizens in our history.

Here is one such example:

http://www.cato.org/raidmap/

I would like nothing more than these so called ‘crimes’ of possession of small amounts of drugs to be neutered. People who casually use most drugs recreationally are not criminals against anything, other than transgressing against a certain type of groupthink, which is used to satiate ones own desires of using the state to enforce a particular set of morals.

See my earlier post about ‘Omnipotent moral busybodies’ for some more clarification.


187 posted on 08/21/2009 7:14:44 PM PDT by bamahead (Avoid self-righteousness like the devil- nothing is so self-blinding. -- B.H. Liddell Hart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: bamahead

Except that you are the ‘Moralist Statist’. You won’t allow each state to make their own drug laws as the Constitution would have it. The Founders left this stuff to the states.

You think the Constitution gives people the right to take drugs. It doesn’t. That came from federal legislatures and courts and Presidents taking control away from the states.

Let’s have 50 different drug laws and all the druggies can go live in California and get prescriptions from doctors to take all the drugs they like. We’ll see how long California can limp along.


188 posted on 08/21/2009 7:17:36 PM PDT by donna (Democracy is not enough. If the culture dies, the country dies. - Pat Buchanan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: donna; dcwusmc; Loud Mime

And you are completely putting words in my mouth! LOL.

Please indicate the post in my almsot 5 year history at FR where I said the Constitution gives people the right to take drugs?

Good luck with that...

And see post #187 on the rights of communities before you continue to place your own smallminded thoughts into MY head, thanks.

I agree with Mr. Loud Mime, donna. You’re like talking to a megaphone in a feedback loop. You seem only to hear yourself blather over the noise. Enjoy.


189 posted on 08/21/2009 7:27:41 PM PDT by bamahead (Avoid self-righteousness like the devil- nothing is so self-blinding. -- B.H. Liddell Hart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: donna

And please note tagline.


190 posted on 08/21/2009 7:29:16 PM PDT by bamahead (Avoid self-righteousness like the devil- nothing is so self-blinding. -- B.H. Liddell Hart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: donna
...enforcement to collect the taxes, catch bootleggers...

That seems to be your vision, some powerful entity in control so all is just as you like it, but it certainly isn't mine. Or perhaps you're just being defeatist. If I had a Dollar for each time I've heard something like "I agree with you but it'll never happen", I could go on a nice word cruise. And that would be lovely.

I have already discussed the perils that would likely come through taxation, government control of distribution channels, tracking of users and so forth, and I don't propose replacing a failure with something any thinking person can plainly see is doomed to become another.

If you wish to speak in terms of the lesser of two evils dismissing all other possibilities out of hand, you're not giving the issue the attention it deserves. The Greens have a slogan they like to use when running a candidate against a Democrat. "If you don't vote for what you want, you'll never get it." Now, you can go with the attitude, well, it's the Greens so it must be stupid (The Netherlands is socialist), but that betrays a closed mind. In my opinion, it's one of the most profound political sayings I ever heard and I try very hard to give it all due heed.

And I can use it in this argument and say no. I'm not going to be pigeonholed.

191 posted on 08/21/2009 7:31:35 PM PDT by Clinging Bitterly (He must fail.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: going hot
Love that.

I forgot to add plastic grocery bags.

I intend to smuggle those as well.

192 posted on 08/21/2009 7:38:57 PM PDT by elkfersupper (Member of the Original Defiant Class)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: bamahead
Well you've just about swayed me, my FRiend.

But we’re not at the point where government cameras are installed in your home to see what you’re doing at all times....do you want to see us go there?

No, absolutely not. And your C.S. Lewis quote and following comments make a nearly-unassailable argument. I'm a libertophile to the bone. But as I said before, liberty is not a trump card for every debate.

Liberty and society are in a perpetual tug-of-war - you don't have to read much of the founders' debates to see they realized this and struggled greatly over it. If a particular liberty might bring this country to ruin - IF, just IF it might - surely you'd find it difficult to oppose restrictions on that liberty, right? I know you don't think drug-liberty could bring us to ruin, but I trust you can see the tug-o-war we face regarding some liberties.

This overreaching federal government makes my job in this debate harder, because they've tugged way too far, and I can't defend their tyrannical actions. But I believe legitimizing drug use will make it widespread, and with it widespread ruin of lives, families, and eventually the nation itself, until we become such a weakened body that we have no defense against whatever ailment (i.e. invading force, communism, islam, etc.) gets to us first.

That's my fear for the future of our great nation. Mexico is acting out of desperation, trying to stave off the "failed state" status everyone's predicting. I hope we never get there, but unless we've got what it takes to control our appetites - drugs or otherwise - it looks to me like that's where we're headed.
193 posted on 08/21/2009 7:44:28 PM PDT by LearsFool ("Thou shouldst not have been old, till thou hadst been wise.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: mvpel
Hasn't the abject failure of alcohol prohibition taught anyone anything?

The possession of alcohol during Prohibition was legal.

194 posted on 08/21/2009 8:21:36 PM PDT by Moonman62 (The issue of whether cheap labor makes America great should have been settled by the Civil War.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: donna

I absolutely DESPISE George Soros & his socialist view of the world. What gets me is how he can use capitalism for his own benefit in order to foist socialism on the rest of us. IMO, he has committed TREASON against the United States, but you know what they say about opinions....


195 posted on 08/21/2009 8:21:53 PM PDT by ChrisInAR (The Tenth Amendment is still the Supreme Law of the Land, folks -- start enforcing it for a CHANGE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: LearsFool

Well that’s what we all have to hope for isn’t it!!?

That people, given Liberty, will invariatably choose the best path? Isn’t that what we all believe?

At least most will, and we’ll be the better people for what the best give, not for what the worst don’t. That doesn’t mean that the majority will go in the ‘worst’ direction, does it? Drugs are illegal now, and many millions are apt to abuse them anyway. Studies in human nature have proven that many people will gravitate toward something strictly because it IS illicit.

The problem with that ol’ slippery slope is that the Government has already created a cottage industry with the WoSD. Paramilitary gear for cops, no knock raids, and civil asset forfeiture laws have been used to give law enforcement a horrible incentive to absolutely rape the Liberty of thousands, unjustly and without any due process.

Just as we argue now against Government creating it’s own cottage healtcare industry, in the same breath many can happily support another...the War on Some Drugs.


196 posted on 08/21/2009 8:24:33 PM PDT by bamahead (Avoid self-righteousness like the devil- nothing is so self-blinding. -- B.H. Liddell Hart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: donna
You all aren’t thinking it through. Big brother will get a foot in your front door with legalization.

You list a number of potential increases in state power that would accompany legalization, but which of those do we not have already under our system of extensive criminalization of drug use?

Sure, maybe if drugs were legalized some revenuers would erroneously show up at my door looking to collect taxes for drugs I'm not actually producing. I'd have to go through the trouble of explaining that I don't produce drugs, and maybe let them look around my place to make sure.

But right now, I might also get a visit from the police based on erroneous information that I possess drugs. Only this time, it's not going to be a matter of answering a few questions and letting them poke around a bit. Under our current drug war, if the police show up at my place looking for drugs they are going to be knocking down doors, pointing guns in my face, and generally tearing my place apart.

Kids are already taken from homes because of drug use. Cops already enforce laws against public intoxication. How could the state get any more intrusive when it comes to drugs than it already is?

197 posted on 08/21/2009 8:25:25 PM PDT by timm22 (Think critically)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: bamahead

What is your plan for legalization that keeps users off the federal database, inspectors out of our houses and gardens and - who pays users’ medical bills, food, rent and child care?

What is your plan for stopping the feds from getting richer and bigger collecting pot taxes, etc?

I’m still waiting for a legalization plan that doesn’t make it worse.


198 posted on 08/21/2009 8:29:21 PM PDT by donna (Democracy is not enough. If the culture dies, the country dies. - Pat Buchanan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: BearArms
Social conservatism brought us this insane drug war, as it did Prohibition, so we really need to look at this movement to really begin to understand what is behind support for the WOD.

You have a point, but overall I think social conservatism has done much more good to our nation than it has harm. I think the problem w/ it is it's willingness to use force (i.e., government) to seek its goals of having a better, more improved nation rather than living by example & spreading The Good News. Doing so has helped to create a gargantuan federal government over what was once 50 sovereign states that were able to better govern themselves accd. to the wishes of We, The People.

199 posted on 08/21/2009 8:36:01 PM PDT by ChrisInAR (The Tenth Amendment is still the Supreme Law of the Land, folks -- start enforcing it for a CHANGE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: donna

Well it doesn’t have to be heavily taxed if the people don’t want it to be, does it?

But now that’s a problem with everything in general, isn’t it? And the Government taxes it anyway.

How about just reducing the Government to much less power than it has over your lives now...in as many ways as possible. Do you agree with me there?

So why can this not be one of them? The government freqently uses this War on Some Drugs as an excuse to deprive you of rights and seize your assets unjustly.

That is a transgression on the very basis of our ideals.

Prime example - look at what happened to this guy in FL in the name of the WoSD.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2320156/posts

That is merely the local authorities who have been given the power to brazenly destroy someone’s life.

Would you not argue at the very least that we should strip the FedGov of such authority immediately?


200 posted on 08/21/2009 8:39:52 PM PDT by bamahead (Avoid self-righteousness like the devil- nothing is so self-blinding. -- B.H. Liddell Hart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220 ... 261-278 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson