(MX) Small amounts of Coke, Heroin and Marijauana legal!

Oranage2

Crazy stuff would it work here?

sean corcoran

and you got my hopes up

phosphate

That's because it's an absolute waste of police and court time prosecuting people for possession of small amounts.

sean corcoran

phosphate wrote: »

That's because it's an absolute waste of police and court time prosecuting people for possession of small amounts.

although i do not agree with the coke and heroine i do not see the problem with weed and or hash being legal in small amounts

why have we not thought it would probably boost our economy if we just legalized it and sold it ourselves

it would boost tourism

Sisko

I would never agree with cocaine or heroine but I'm willing to bet the reason mexico is doing this is not due to it being a progressive forward thinking nation, but more due to it being involved and losing one of the worlds largest and most violent drug wars.

Police there have a hard enough time not getting assassinated to worry about small amounts of drugs the odd person has for personal use.

Lavattack

Legalizing weed is grand in my opinion but not sur about coke and definately not gear!!!

Bit off topic but ye watching full video..... she never changes her goddam clothes like!!!! must be 40+ different reports there and the same top.....


GO CHANGE YER CLOTHES AND HAVE A SHOWER WOMAN!!!

gonedrinking

Lavattack wrote: »

Bit off topic but ye watching full video..... she never changes her goddam clothes like!!!! must be 40+ different reports there and the same top.....


GO CHANGE YER CLOTHES AND HAVE A SHOWER WOMAN!!!

Can you imagine the stank off her? Man, I would love to go down on her.

FlutterinBantam

You forget one thing ,my friend.

We are Irish, we don't do 'small amounts':cool:

Mahatma coat

Why do some people think its OK to egalise canabis but not Heroin and coke

free will People, free will

I think you should be entitled to put whatever you want into your body, it should only become a crime if you exploit others to achieve this.

ie. Junkie shootin gear into his eyeball, Fine
Junkie robbin your telly to pay for that gear, Not fine

People using coke on the weekends, fine
cartels enslaving villages to produce the coke, not Fine

FlutterinBantam

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Why do some people think its OK to egalise canabis but not Heroin and coke

free will People, free will

I think you should be entitled to put whatever you want into your body, it should only become a crime if you exploit others to achieve this.

ie. Junkie shootin gear into his eyeball, Fine
Junkie robbin your telly to pay for that gear, Not fine

People using coke on the weekends, fine
cartels enslaving villages to produce the coke, not Fine

How about exploiting John Q taxpayer when your wrecked and emaciated body ends up in the A&E and you cost thousands to process ?

That's fine is it?

Mahatma coat

OK, if you believe in socialisim then Yeah.

What are the other options, only people who live Healthy lives get hospital treatment??

Heart attack due to obesity, Sorry your own fault
Lung cancer from Smoking, tough **** mate
Alcohol poisining from a weekend bender, ya should have thought of that before the 154th Jagerrbomb
Crashed yer car cos you were speeding, Oh ya broke a Law, no treatment for you.

A Lot of the people who may rewuire treatment are also TAXPAYERS, so what do you suggest, bring your VHI/Medicalcard and your latest Tax return before you go to hospital??

FlutterinBantam

Injecting horse into your eyeball... fcuk off and sort yourself out pal:D

Herb Powell

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

How about exploiting John Q taxpayer when your wrecked and emaciated body ends up in the A&E and you cost thousands to process ?

That's fine is it?

Do you believe in an American style health system?

FlutterinBantam

Herb Powell wrote: »

Do you believe in an American style health system?

I don't believe any health System could afford the consequences if all drugs were legalised as the poster said.

That is you could put anything you like into your body.

Pace2008

Lavattack wrote: »

Legalizing weed is grand in my opinion but not sur about coke and definately not gear!!!

Bit off topic but ye watching full video..... she never changes her goddam clothes like!!!! must be 40+ different reports there and the same top.....


GO CHANGE YER CLOTHES AND HAVE A SHOWER WOMAN!!!

This isn't legalisation, it's decriminlisation. It's still illegal to supply the drugs, and they're still not legally available to purchase.

The rationale behind the move is to keep drugs like heroin away from a wider market, but to free up police and court time by making simple possession legal. No more obscene career-ruining criminal records for decent people caught with small amounts of weed either.

Mahatma coat

So society couldnt afford to help them?? but we can afford to chase these people prossecute them stigmatise them and lock them up at great expense to the taxpayer

RasTa

To all the people saying no to coke and heroin. What benefit does it have to arrest users of said drugs, not suppliers but just users?

CiaranC

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

That is you could put anything you like into your body.

You can put anything you like into your body now

starbelgrade

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

I don't believe any health System could afford the consequences if all drugs were legalised as the poster said.

That is you could put anything you like into your body.

If you are going to argue against legalising drugs purely on a cost / economic basis, you have already lost the argument.

In the USA for example, the market value for illegal drugs is actually greater than the gross domestic product of the country. By regulating & taxing all drugs, governments stand to make a lot of money.

Add to that the savings made from not arresting & prosecuting dealers and economically it makes sense to legalise drugs - all types of drugs.

The argument then can only really hinge on the moral aspect & the effect that legalising drugs can have on society.

Logical Fallacy

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

How about exploiting John Q taxpayer when your wrecked and emaciated body ends up in the A&E and you cost thousands to process ?

That's fine is it?

We do it everyday with booze, the excuse given is that booze is legal.

Ergo, the application the "it's legal" excuse fits in this case.

Personally i would agree with the legalisation of some drugs, but definitely not for tourists. Nothing destroys a nice quiet stay in Amsterdam quite like the bull**** of the noob stoner.

120_Minutes

Watch flutt ignore the fact that his argument has been torn to shreds because it's not an argument at all, merely a misguided opinion.

Caoimhín

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

How about exploiting John Q taxpayer when your wrecked and emaciated body ends up in the A&E and you cost thousands to process ?

That's fine is it?

Ive often thought that there should be a universal health insurance tax. If you smoke, drink too much, take narcotics or are generally a lazy slob then you pay more. Want to reduce your tax? quit the fags and go for a long walk every day.
Simples.

whoopdedoo

Oranage2 wrote: »

Crazy stuff would it work here?

I'd like to find out, an honest approach to the drugs issue would be a welcome change for those who like to use recreationally!!

gosuckonalemon

Jaysus...FlutterinBantam is back...looking forward to some seriously retarded posts in this thread!

whoopdedoo

Mahatma coat wrote: »

So society couldnt afford to help them?? but we can afford to chase these people prossecute them stigmatise them and lock them up at great expense to the taxpayer

hypocrisy, isn't it lovely!!

FlutterinBantam

120_Minutes wrote: »

Watch flutt ignore the fact that his argument has been torn to shreds because it's not an argument at all, merely a misguided opinion.

Misguided indeed, my argument has not been torn to shreds.

Small amounts of Coke, heroin and weed legal.... recipe for disaster pal.

FlutterinBantam

gosuckonalemon wrote: »

Jaysus...FlutterinBantam is back...looking forward to some seriously retarded posts in this thread!

Never went away man, get used to it newbie;)

Mahatma coat

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Misguided indeed, my argument has not been torn to shreds.

OK, Please clarify your argument

Small amounts of Coke, heroin and weed legal.... recipe for disaster pal.

exactly HOW is it a recipe for Disaster??????

FlutterinBantam

Caoimhín wrote: »

Ive often thought that there should be a universal health insurance tax. If you smoke, drink too much, take narcotics or are generally a lazy slob then you pay more. Want to reduce your tax? quit the fags and go for a long walk every day.
Simples.

I often thought that too, then I remembered that 95% of the people in that category don't pay tax and are state dependant;)

So I threw that great idea into the trash can.

FlutterinBantam

Mahatma coat wrote: »

OK, Please clarify your argument

exactly HOW is it a recipe for Disaster??????

Because Coke heroin and weed are extremely addictive, people START small get hooked, and become full-time junkies.

THAT'S how it is a recipe for disaster.

Yakult

Mexico is a way way different country to anyother for drugs. So these decrimilisation will probably do that place some good.

Wouldnt work here, but would like to see decriminalisation of Cannabis and nothing else.

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Because Coke heroin and weed are extremely addictive, people START small get hooked, and become full-time junkies.

THAT'S how it is a recipe for disaster.

Wrong.

karma_

FlutterinBantam, happier than a pig rolling about in it's own faeces to impose his will onto others, but indignant at the thought of others imposing their own will on themselves.

FlutterinBantam

Attack the post ,not the poster, isn't that in the Charter:)

karma_

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Attack the post ,not the poster, isn't that in the Charter:)

I see nothing wrong in pointing out your gross hypocrisy.

FlutterinBantam

Well then maybe you can explain why instead of putting your point of view forward you have to attack me personally?:rolleyes:

stovelid

Stupidity to advocate legalizing one drug and banning another purely based on personal preference.

karma_

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Well then maybe you can explain why instead of putting your point of view forward you have to attack me personally?:rolleyes:

Please refer to my previous post.

ScumLord

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

How about exploiting John Q taxpayer when your wrecked and emaciated body ends up in the A&E and you cost thousands to process ?

That's fine is it?

But John Q is being exploited on both counts as it is. He's being exploited for cash to fund a war against chemicals that are impossible to get rid of, this causes massive crime and encourages people to turn to that crime. Then we have the medical costs on top of that. With legalised drugs addiction could be combated outside of the hospitals and there would be no drug related crime outside of drink related violence. Drugs don't pose enough of a threat to justify the organised crime the law creates.

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Misguided indeed, my argument has not been torn to shreds.

Small amounts of Coke, heroin and weed legal.... recipe for disaster pal.

I'd agree to a certain extent, decriminalising only makes it easier for criminals to do their work. Full legalisation with proper controls and support for the minority that will lose the run of themselves.

Mahatma coat

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Because Coke heroin and weed are extremely addictive, people START small get hooked, and become full-time junkies.

THAT'S how it is a recipe for disaster.

their addictiveness dosent change because they are legalised :rolleyes:

thats mostly true ( except the bit about weed) at the moment.

Take Portugal as an example, they decriminalised useage and posession of all Narcotics, their addiction figures did not shoot massivley into the sky overnight, however people were able to finally come forward and receive assistance in dealing with their addiction without fear of imprisonment the general level of Junkies and derros fell in the major cities

ScumLord

The best example of how hard punishment doesn't work would be in Afghanistan. They used to behead or cut off a hand if anyone was caught in possession of any drugs. Didn't help, being on the Heroin trail meant they had one of the highest addict rates anywhere in the world.

Now they use rehabilitation instead of punishment and Heroin use is finally falling.

Even cutting off peoples heads isn't a deterrent, the only way to stop drug addicts is to help them find another way of living.

120_Minutes

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Because Coke heroin and weed are extremely addictive, people START small get hooked, and become full-time junkies.

THAT'S how it is a recipe for disaster.

I smoke weed, fairly often, but if i cant afford it, i stop. It has never led me on to any other drugs and i'm not a full time junkie.

so with regards to weed, your argument is torn to shreds.

but i'm sure you'll come back with some nonsense that is entirely reasonable in your own twisted scat loving head, or you'll just ignore my post.

at the end of the day you'll still be wrong.

Logical Fallacy

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Because Coke heroin and weed are extremely addictive, people START small get hooked, and become full-time junkies.

THAT'S how it is a recipe for disaster.

Can i see something other than your opinion that backs up that "weed is extremely addictive"....some kind of study or statistics would be nice.

Don't think you have countered the point that the taxes raised from sales would help any impact on the Health Service either.

TheZohanS

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

How about exploiting John Q taxpayer when your wrecked and emaciated body ends up in the A&E and you cost thousands to process ?

That's fine is it?

Ah sure we could take that attitude to everything.

Out cycling and get hit by a car? Your fault for going cycling and putting yourself in that position.

Lifting a box at home and you twist your back? Your fault, nobody asked you to lift a box. Your fault.

Driving your car and you get crashed into? Well la dee daa, you have a car, nobody asked you to drive. Your fault.

Out on the town minding and you get jumped and mugged and need stitches? Nobody asked you to head out on the town, your fault for being there.

Playing footie and you break your leg? Tough, it's not our fault that your personal pursuits have caused you an injury, deal with it yourself and don't be blocking up our A&E.

RasTa

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Because Coke heroin and weed are extremely addictive, people START small get hooked, and become full-time junkies.

THAT'S how it is a recipe for disaster.

http://www.drugsandalcohol.ie/12157/

Regular users: Over one-quarter (26%) of respondents who had ever taken cannabis reported using (or having used) it regularly. The lag time between first use and regular use was two years. Of those who were or had been regular users, two-thirds (66%) said that they had stopped taking cannabis, 10% said that they had tried to stop but failed and almost one-quarter (24%) had never tried to stop. Of those who had stopped, approximately one-third (32%) said they had done so because they no longer wanted to take the drug, 19% said they had health concerns and 17% said it was no longer part of their social life.

Now that's only from a sample of 5,000. Please back up your statement.

UsernameInUse

Portugal has decriminalised all drugs - the usage among people over there compared with other countries who enforce a criminalisation method is astonishingly favourable. It won't happen here - politicians don't have the balls to make a difference. The only job for a politician to do when he gets elected is to get re-elected.

Caoimhín

TheZohan wrote: »

Ah sure we could take that attitude to everything.

Out cycling and get hit by a car? Your fault for going cycling and putting yourself in that position.

Lifting a box at home and you twist your back? Your fault, nobody asked you to lift a box. Your fault.

Driving your car and you get crashed into? Well la dee daa, you have a car, nobody asked you to drive. Your fault.

Out on the town minding and you get jumped and mugged and need stitches? Nobody asked you to head out on the town, your fault for being there.

Playing footie and you break your leg? Tough, it's not our fault that your personal pursuits have caused you an injury, deal with it yourself and don't be blocking up our A&E.

You dont do any of those things with the knowledge that it is almost certainly doing you damage. Smoking, heavy drinking, narcotics etc are proven to damage yor health.
If, as an consenting adult, you knowing and willingly engage in the abuse of a substance that is proven to cause harm, then yes, you should be responsible for the cost of your medical care.

If that angers the bleeding heart pinkos out there, meh.

RichieC

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Because Coke heroin and weed are extremely addictive, people START small get hooked, and become full-time junkies.

THAT'S how it is a recipe for disaster.

Oh sweet jesus christ..

120_Minutes

flutt wont be back in this thread, his ass has been well and truly pwned by facts.

Tahuti

120_Minutes wrote: »

flutt wont be back in this thread, his ass has been well and truly pwned by facts.

Silly things like facts and common sense won't deter the Flutt.

Someone has to stand up for John Q Taxpayer.

Logical Fallacy

Caoimhín wrote: »

You dont do any of those things with the knowledge that it is almost certainly doing you damage. Smoking, heavy drinking, narcotics etc are proven to damage yor health.
If, as an consenting adult, you knowing and willingly engage in the abuse of a substance that is proven to cause harm, then yes, you should be responsible for the cost of your medical care.

If that angers the bleeding heart pinkos out there, meh.

You forgot eating in fast food restaurants, having a **** diet in general, not getting enough exercise, people who are too dedicate to their job (as they tend to be at higher risk of heart attack) or many other decisions made despite there being evidence of possible damage to health.

Finally "bleeding heart" is used to define some one as radically left win, "pinko" is used to define somone as mildly left wing. Pinko can also mean someone who is sympathetic to Communism.

As such, i have no idea who you think you are angering and i am pretty sure you don't either.

TheZohanS

Caoimhín wrote: »

You dont do any of those things with the knowledge that it is almost certainly doing you damage. Smoking, heavy drinking, narcotics etc are proven to damage yor health.
If, as an consenting adult, you knowing and willingly engage in the abuse of a substance that is proven to cause harm, then yes, you should be responsible for the cost of your medical care.

If that angers the bleeding heart pinkos out there, meh.

To be fair you do know that there is a definite risk involved.

Why is it mandatory to wear a seatbelt? Because of the chance of an accident. You know there's a risk involved with driving.

Why is a dirty tackle in football punishable with a yellow/red card or sending off? Because people can get seriously injured. It's accepted that there is a risk of injury.

Why do you have to wear a helmet whilst riding a bicycle? In case you have an accident, it's accepted that there is a risk involved with cycling.


You lost your argument when you mentioned "bleeding heart pinkos".