Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Mexico Legalises nearly ALL Drugs

Comments

  • #2
    LostinBlanch
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,907 ✭✭✭LostinBlanch


    Interesting to see what happens.

    I'm sure the Yanks aren't too happy though. I mean imagine if it worked then the War Against Drugs would have to be replaced by a war against something else. Oh wait . . . . .


  • #3
    Dave!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,857 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    yeah this will be very interesting. i'm curious to see the result of this experiment.


  • #4
    Dave!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,857 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    just saw this
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4971416.stm

    they changed the bill a good bit


  • #5
    Beruthiel
    Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 42,362 Mod ✭✭✭✭Beruthiel


    it would seem that someone had a little word in his shell like

    /edit
    thread title fixed


  • #6
    Pazaz 21
    Closed Accounts Posts: 294 ✭✭Pazaz 21


    The bill, as it stands, would legalise possession of small amounts of cocaine, marijuana and heroin for personal use.
    President Vicente Fox has returned the measure to Congress, saying it should make clear that possessing and using drugs will remain a criminal offence.

    Is it just me or does this sound kinda contradictory ?


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    Dave!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,857 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    yeah, they back-pedalled cos of US opposition


  • #8
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,639 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    I wonder if we're getting the full story. I note in the BBC article that support from the U-Turn is coming from California, which has its own disagreements with the US Federal Government over what should and should not be a legal drug.

    NTM


  • #9
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Pazaz 21 wrote:
    Is it just me or does this sound kinda contradictory ?

    If you only read the stuff in bold maybe


  • #10
    Pazaz 21
    Closed Accounts Posts: 294 ✭✭Pazaz 21


    Deleted User wrote:
    If you only read the stuff in bold maybe


    Well i think it's kind of hard to make the possesion of drugs both legal and illegal at the same time. Unless you know something that i don't ?:rolleyes:


  • #11
    Maskhadov
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,065 ✭✭✭Maskhadov


    Im very disapointed about the news. Narcotics are dangerous and should not be made legal. I hope this is a bogus story or the policy gets binned


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Pazaz 21 wrote:
    Well i think it's kind of hard to make the possesion of drugs both legal and illegal at the same time. Unless you know something that i don't ?:rolleyes:
    The bill, as it stands, would legalise possession of small amounts of cocaine, marijuana and heroin for personal use.
    President Vicente Fox has returned the measure to Congress, saying it should make clear that possessing and using drugs will remain a criminal offence.

    The president unhappy with the bill produced by Congress, vetoed it & returned it to them, so that the section relating to legalisation of possesion could be changed. What's the problem?


  • #13
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Maskhadov wrote:
    Im very disapointed about the news. Narcotics are dangerous and should not be made legal. I hope this is a bogus story or the policy gets binned

    Alcohol, knives, cars, painkillers, free roaming elephants and toasters can all be dangerous. Something being dangerous is not sufficient grounds for the state to ban it. If the net costs to society of enforcing the illegality of something are greater than the net costs to society of it remaining legal, why should a government intervene? Is the government intrinsically obligated to prevent people using marijuana in the privacy of their own home, if that person is fully aware of the costs to themselves of such use?


  • #14
    John R
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,107 ✭✭✭John R


    Maskhadov wrote:
    Im very disapointed about the news. Narcotics are dangerous and should not be made legal. I hope this is a bogus story or the policy gets binned

    Unfortunately we are still decades away from any sort of sensible drugs policy. A proper adult debate about the realities of the situation is still a taboo in the mainstream. Any public figure, particularly politicians that dare to disagree with the current prohibition policies are instantly labelled as pro-drugs and accused of being child-killers by the ranting media and other ignorant fools.

    The effects of the illegality of the drug trade as well as the international "war" on drugs is far far worse than the medical effects of drug taking.

    I am sure that all this has been gone over before here so I won't bother re-hashing the arguements.


Advertisement