Mexico Legalizes Personal Possession of MJ, coke, meth, LSD etc.

Drugs have been around for a long time. It can come from the mother while pregnant, especially if you think back to all the drugs during the 60s-70s. Hell, we can even say 80s.

Drug Addicted Babies

 

Here's one baby that was born with the drug addiction.

In this particular case, you won't have to worry about it growing up to be an adult abuser.

 

You should "spoiler" that picture.

 

You know, back in the day, there were no drugs laws. The first one passed was a local law in California preventing not people from smoking opium, but Chinese people from smoking opium.

The first federal law was the mar1juana Stamp Tax Act in 1937, which had a lot more to do with the publisher William Randolph Heart lobbying the government to protect his lumber and paper industry from hemp than anything to do with addiction or protecting people.

In fact, back in the day, a hell of a lot of people in congress were opposed to any form of drug laws, as they felt it infringed on a person's right to privacy, and thus freedom.

The only thing going on now is what has been going on for many, many, many years: our policies feed a black market, which feeds criminal empire. People are going to get high. We've been doing it for thousands of years. It's not going anywhere. Prohibition doesn't work. Time to do something else: legalize, tax, educate, regulate.

 

Well it's usually best for laymen to look to the medical community for answers to these questions. The Medical community has said that it is a disease.

There are people who can use alcohol, or heroine, and not become addicted. Others will become addicted.

 

I can't believe their are people who actually think having legal drugs are a good idea. Have you ever been around a meth addict, or someone tripping on lsd, or someone tweeked out of their mind? Recent surveys show that driving while high on marijauna is twice as dangerous as driving drunk. Kinda throws out that argument potheads have been using for years.
This bbs is crazy. Staying home to protect your property when a hurricane may or may not hit you and even if it did in your location you are OK, government must step in and regulate to make sure you leave. Meth, LSD, cocaine, and all other drugs, It should be the person's right to endanger all others by recreation drug use just to get high, government has no right stopping. That is some of the greatest logic I have ever heard. And it is all the same people saying both of these things.

 

I don't think going with the medical evidence and the medical community and calling it a disease is really making excuses to do the stuff, or not to stop if you have a problem with the addiction.

Why would you even think that calling it a disease would encourage people not to get off of it, and clean up?

 

except if they never take it, there would be no problem.

 

Back in the day we were largely talking about weed and opiates. That is vastly different from what we are talking about now. It is comparing apples to shoes.

If they want to legalize weed, that is one thing. I have no issue with that. Weed is no more dangerous than drinking or smoking cigs.

LSD - Nasty stuff. You can have flashbacks with no warning years later. Kind of like the guy in my theater troupe back in the day. He had a flashback, stole his mother's car, and was arrested the next day about 600 miles away. Bad.

Cocaine - It can kill you in so many ways. It can kill you the first time you use it if you have some underlying problem. If it is crack, it can simply kill you the first time you use it (Len Bias). It is processed for use by using lots of gasoline. People snorting gasoline. No thanks for legality.

Meth - Just nasty, vile stuff. It uses people up and spits them out. You cannot store the chemicals to make it in the same place or they go boom. No thanks.

Heroin - Arguably the most physically addictive substance on the planet. The withdrawal alone can kill you. No thanks.

Again, I completely understand the arguments for legalizing weed and opium and other similar drugs. IMO, arguing for legal heroin, cocaine and meth is just lunacy.

 

You that having decriminalizing drugs actually reduces drug use, right? You would have fewer deaths and people getting high. Here's a story from Scientific American on what happened when one country decriminalized drug use.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=portugal-drug-decriminalization

 

Could you explain your rationale to me as I'm having a hard time understanding how you can be pro-legalization of pot AND maybe LSD? The two are not even in the same ball park. LSD is a hallucinogen and has screwed some people up for life (the unlucky ones who get the bad trip). You really want people walking around the streets legally with this stuff? I think the former should be decriminalized. The rest of this stuff should remain illegal. I believe that tobacco is much worse than pot and there is nothing out there to counter that even though I'm sure many out there would love to prove that wrong. If pot is illegal, then tobacco should be illegal. Or, vice versa. Both make you feel good...pot stimulating the endorphines moreso than tobacco. Difference is tobaco and nicotine is highly addictive...pot is not addictive (albeit some would claim otherwise). It's easy to fall into the habit of pot and confuse that with addiction. But, it's quite easy to stop using pot, go through some very minor withdrawals (maybe grogginess, a few headaches initially, some minor cravings,...but all easily left behind after a few days and some good sleep time), and resume normalcy. It's much more difficult to quit tobacco because of nicotine.

 

Who would want to have MJ as a possession...? R.I.P. Michael.

 

Here is a more detailed story from Time Magazine that shows drug use went down among teens, instead of going up like critics predicited.



http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html

 

I'm not arguing that people should take it. That doesn't make it less of a disease. If I'm nowhere near malaria mosquitoes and never get bitten, that doesn't make malaria less of a disease.

 

That's absolutely ridiculous. And I see meth, coke, and heroin addicts in court every day. My dad and 3 of my grandparents were alcoholics, but I've made different choices in my life. And I've seen addicts get treatment and kick their habits, based on making the right choices and seeking the help they needed.

Once you start abusing drugs or alcohol, it can be difficult to stop, and in that sense addiction can be seen as a "disease". Heroin, in particular, has strong physical withdrawl symptoms that make it difficult to quit. But the person using drugs or abusing alcohol made the choice to do it to begin with.

Schizophrenics, by the way, are much more likely to be crime victims than they are to act violently against others. They're probably not, as a group, what you're thinking of, and many don't manifest any paranoid delusions, much less act on them. Social perception of the condition is much worse than the reality, from my understanding.

 

Here's a a table showing drug use amonth 10th-12th graders in 2001 and 2006. Decriminalization showed a drop in ecstasy, cocaine, mar1juana, Amphetamines, LSD, shrooms and heroin. The drop is more noticeable among the harder drugs, such as cocaine, amphetamines, and heroin.

 

I've personally been around meth addicts, crack addicts, and plenty of people tripping on all sorts of psychedelics. Not one of them was better off due to the illegal status of their particular drug of choice.

And while driving under the influence of cannabis is not the safest thing in the world, it's a helluva lot less dangerous than driving drunk. But even if it weren't, nobody is proposing that we legalize DUI, so your point is a red herring.

 

I guess Andy Moon has moved to Mexico by now.



DD

 

Kind of hard to take that so-called "survey" seriously. I'm sure there is corroborating evidence that backs that up? I would like to see that. Who participated in this survey? Law enforcement? There is no way that, if you look at the statistics, that is even close to true. Drunk driving is #1 by a long shot.

I will volunteer this about driving while high on mar1juana. People who do not tend to smoke mar1juana a lot have a lower tolerance to THC. Therefore, they end up being more high than a person who smokes mar1juana more often and has a higher tolerance when they use. An example is if you haven't smoked mar1juana in a week...then you will be more high than a person who smoked mar1juana earlier in the day and the days before that. The fact is a regular smoker who smokes quite often or all day long can only achieve a certain highness after a while...and even then this is more of a normacly level because the user's tolerance levels have adjusted to the usage factor. Therefore, a reasonable conclusion is that people who do not smoke all that often will get higher and, thus, be a more unsafe driver than people who have a higher tolerance. I will take the higher tolerance driver over the lower tolerance driver...if I had to choose. But, I don't condone driving with someone who is high regardless of how often they smoke and/or their tolerance level. Responsible smokers don't tend to smoke while they drive and/or get behind the wheel right after they smoke. They would wait a few hours to let the buzz wear off. Again, I don't condone driving under any highness factor. And, that especially includes prescription drugs like Oxycontin, Xanax, Valium, and others. Some people tend to give those users a free pass for driving...like those aren't factors at all in how one operates machinery.

 

There are tons of people who have genes which predispose them to conditions like heart disease or cancer. The fact that some of these people don't get cancer, again, doesn't mean that the people who do did are to blame for causing themselves to get cancer or disease. Furthermore, the fact that some people with genetic abnormalities adopt heroic measures after developing early symptoms to avoid disease when they find out they are predisposed, doesn't make everybody who doesn't adopt these measures guilty of causing their disease.

Another example would be the fact that some people just aren't born with high intelligence. You can through addition or subtraction of effort and experience adjust your intelligence within a range, but someone born predisposed to being borderline mentaly deficient can not ever become a genius, no matter how much effort they put in. The fact that the top 1% of those people somehow heroically become nearly average doesn't mean that the other 99% can't manage to do so because they are morally deficient.

The crux of the issue is that people would like to believe they are responsible for every advantage. They also don't want to believe that their sensorium and cognition are as heavily dependent on biology and instinct as they in fact are.