MEXICO CITY (AP) - Mexico's Congress approved a bill Friday decriminalizing possession of small amounts of marijuana, ecstasy, cocaine and heroin for personal use - a measure sure to raise questions in Washington about Mexico's commitment to the war on drugs.
The only step remaining was the signature of the president, whose office indicated he would sign it.
http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?floc=ns-tos-feat-h-02&idq=/ff/story/0001/20060428/1712483764.htm
How long before the U.S. wakes up and follows suit? The war on drugs is lost, and this seems to be the course that most enlightened countries are taking now.
Originally posted by rwingettEnlightened? Just because Mexico (who, by the way are not an enlightened country) do it, doesn't mean others need to do it too.
[i]MEXICO CITY (AP) - Mexico's Congress approved a bill Friday decriminalizing possession of small amounts of marijuana, ecstasy, cocaine and heroin for personal use - a measure sure to raise questions in Washington about Mexico's commitment to the war on drugs.
The only step remaining was the signature of the president, whose office indicated he would s ...[text shortened]... drugs is lost, and this seems to be the course that most enlightened countries are taking now.
Originally posted by SeitseWell with his command of english I don't think he is very enlightened either. If decriminalization were to happen in the US, it would take half the prisoners out of jail immediately and save the US many billions of dollars but of course with the ultraright wing ashholes running the US that would be the last thing in the world to happen.
Mexico not enlightened?... please tell us you were joking.
Being a third world country has nothing to do with being "enlightened" or not.
WW3 would happen before individual freedoms would be a consideration in the US.
Originally posted by sonhouseIf you let murderers, rapists, burglars, in fact criminals of every sort out of your jails that would also save you billions of dollars, but it would put many dangerous criminals on the streets and you might even find yourself getting burgled or murdered. Perhaps the "ultraright wing assholes" have more common sense than you do.
Well with his command of english I don't think he is very enlightened either. If decriminalization were to happen in the US, it would take half the prisoners out of jail immediately and save the US many billions of dollars but of course with the ultraright wing ashholes running the US that would be the last thing in the world to happen.
WW3 would happen before individual freedoms would be a consideration in the US.
If you can point out how my command of English is deficient, do so, but remember, your own post was full of discrepancies too. I have nothing against you posting grammatical inaccuracies such as "english", spelling mistakes such as "decriminalization" or nonsensical words such as "ultraright", so long as you desist from trying to nitpick the mistakes of others.
Originally posted by princeoforangeFor a start, mate, the burden is NOT mine but yours to show it is not an enlightened country. Perhaps some law theory would be of help understanding that the burden is on the part that afirms.
OK, can you supply examples of Mexico's enlightened state? If you can, I will not hesitate to retract my statement.
How much have you traveled? Where to? How much do you read?
Anyway, I am always delighted to see an educated post [without trash talk or racial insults], so I may enlighten you a bit regarding Mexico, no arrogance intended but a little game of words.
Give me a few minutes to work on something.
😉
Originally posted by SeitseOK, I'll give you as long as you like. Don't be deceived, I'ld love you to prove me wrong. As I have no evidence to back up my statement that Mexico is not enlightened, I will retract my statement, and say that Mexico is not more enlightened than the USA. Also, their new drugs policy shows regression on their part (that's just my opinion) so the example should not be followed by the USA.
For a start, mate, the burden is NOT mine but yours to show it is [b]not an enlightened country. Perhaps some law theory would be of help understanding that the burden is on the part that afirms.
How much have you traveled? Where to? How much do you read?
Anyway, I am always delighted to see an educated post [without trash talk or racial insults], ...[text shortened]... ogance intended but a little game of words.
Give me a few minutes to work on something.
😉[/b]
Originally posted by princeoforangeDrug debate aside [we will get into an interesting debate later, deal?] it is the 'enlightenment' concept the one buzzing in my ear.
OK, I'll give you as long as you like. Don't be deceived, I'ld love you to prove me wrong. As I have no evidence to back up my statement that Mexico is not enlightened, I will retract my statement, and say that Mexico is not more enlightened than the USA. Also, their new drugs policy shows regression on their part (that's just my opinion) so the example should not be followed by the USA.
Almost ready, give me a minute 😉
Edit. Find my post below...
"Enlightenment is a fundamental philosophical concept which grew beyond religion and spirituality and essentially means being illuminated by acquiring new wisdom or understanding."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightenment_%28concept%29
Enlightenment is, thus, not suitable to classify any country. However, I guess the use of the term on your behalf in this case refers to development. If a narrow vision chooses to define enlightenment in sense of economic development, then maybe Mexico is not as "enlightened" as other 11 countries.
However, even in this field such narrowness is contested, since Mexico is the 12th economy of the world with the 3rd richest person in the globe and several Forbes lists businesspeople. The problem with the country, among many others, is distribution of wealth. Period.
"According to the World Bank, Mexico ranks 12th in the world in regard to GDP and has the highest per capita income in its region; and it is firmly established as an upper middle-income country."
However, going back to "enlightenment" as a societal concept (which is wrong, I stress), the country is by no means in feudal stages or in dark ages as to culture, art, societal structure and other areas of human doing. Of course I could start here a list of the great contributions to humanity nested and originated in Mexico [including two of the most developed cultures in terms of science, trade and art: Aztecs and Mayans], but I think I would start looking as a "nationalist" (in the depictive sense of the word) and end up looking like an ignorant, chauvinistic and bigot of the worst kind. I leave that "priviledge" to others, specially those with a lack of vision and
structured reasoning. I repeat, "enlightenment" (if applicable) has nothing to do with being a first, second or third world country. And no, this is not a nonsense "which-country-is-best" debate (leave
that to children and retarded chauvinists.)
I may be the 1st critic of Mexico, but one has to be fair and see Mexico as what it is. A western country with huge problems -like any other country. It has all the elements of a developed country,
including a political system that it may be corrupt but meets all the criteria of the modern world in terms of shape. Also, if "enlightenment" is used as being a society "illuminated by acquiring new wisdom or understanding", well, then all we must refer to is the presence of very important "think-tanks" and do-tanks"
pletoric of educated, experienced minds, thousands of artists and writers (including international award winners) and the abscence of what may classify a society as a non-modern country: cannibalism, human sacrifices, ritualistic paganism, mutilation of female genitalia, oppression of women, etc. (this is just a guess since I'm not an expert in such fields of human knowledge, but I'm sure you get the idea of what I'm saying)
Let's learn something from a source I bet some will love (the CIA factbook).
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/mx.html
Although I would recommend:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico
And no, it's not needed to travel there to know Mexico has all the characteristics of a modern society (its huge problems aside) -all people have to do is read some and think some more, and ask others who've been there.
P.S. In this light, Mexico is not less "enlightened" than the U.S. It's just poorer. So feel free to travel there, it is an "enlightened" country and you will have a quality time from Baja to Cancun and from Monterrey to Guadalajara, with all the comforts you may find in Paris, Milan, New York, London or Cape Town.
Originally posted by rwingettGood! The Right to Pursue Happiness is being recognized in Mexico. When will the US stop suppressing it?
MEXICO CITY (AP) - Mexico's Congress approved a bill Friday decriminalizing possession of small amounts of marijuana, ecstasy, cocaine and heroin for personal use - a measure sure to raise questions in Washington about Mexico's commitment to the war on drugs.
The only step remaining was the signature of the president, whose office indicated he would s drugs is lost, and this seems to be the course that most enlightened countries are taking now.
Originally posted by princeoforangeYes, if you let burglers out, you might get burgled. If you let drug users out...they might use drugs? What do you care?
If you let murderers, rapists, burglars, in fact criminals of every sort out of your jails that would also save you billions of dollars, but it would put many dangerous criminals on the streets and you might even find yourself getting burgled or murdered. Perhaps the "ultraright wing assholes" have more common sense than you do.
If you can point o ...[text shortened]... ch as "ultraright", so long as you desist from trying to nitpick the mistakes of others.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungDrug users don't only harm themselves, they harm others, because drugs affect your perception in various ways. I know there are arguments for the legalisation of drugs, but I am a sceptic.
Yes, if you let burglers out, you might get burgled. If you let drug users out...they might use drugs? What do you care?
The case for decriminalising canabis use is overwhelmig.
There are many arguments in favour, but one I find particularly convincing is that it breaks the link to 'hard' drugs.
As illegal drug supply operates in a standard capitalistic fashion, it is in the drug dealers financial interests for their clients to progress from canabis to more addictive drugs, so that the dealer then has a regular income. Just like MacDonalds giving cheap toys to kids buying a happy meal.
If we accept that canabis use is widespread amongst young people, and that we can't reverse this, then we must prevent them falling prey to dangerous drugs.
We should decriminalise and then legalise canabis use - get it away from the criminal elements.
Originally posted by RedmikeI'm not sure that makes any difference. I'm ambivalent on the cannabis issue and probably lean towards it being legalised but I don't think this particular argument works.
The case for decriminalising canabis use is overwhelmig.
There are many arguments in favour, but one I find particularly convincing is that it breaks the link to 'hard' drugs.
As illegal drug supply operates in a standard capitalistic fashion, it is in the drug dealers financial interests for their clients to progress from canabis to more addictive dru ...[text shortened]... should decriminalise and then legalise canabis use - get it away from the criminal elements.
People who move on to harder drugs are still going to do that. Hard drugs have a culture and you're not part of it if you can nip down the road to the local coffee shop and have a quick smoke while you're waiting for your bus to work in the morning. It doesn't have the allure, the kudos or the two fingers poked at mediocrity. Once you're into the Class A's your dealer is still there pushing you up the line to the point where all the excitement has gone but its too late.