US - Mexico president hints legalizing drugs may be needed

SeekerOfEuphoria said:
I think its far too optimistic with anything but marijuana. I think the most the US would ever do is decriminalize some things, but decriminalizing will not provide access and in certain areas street prices will not lower, therefore addicts lifestyles will not change and crime will remain. If only there was a day I could walk up to a vending machine and pick whatever I wanted.
Click to expand...
We are going to have to accept it or the crumbling economy will finish disintegrating... And the border will become a progressively worse area of violence and mayhem
 
while i would love to see ron paul win, i dont think there is even a 10% chance he, or any independent candidate for that matter, will win.


for an independent to win the US will have to be uber fed up with the bickering and bullshit that the left and right have been doing as of late. i dont have much faith in anyone in the US standing up for anything. if this were the 60s there would be massive marches and protests. for anything to happen, or happen quickly, every major city in the US wll have to take to the streets and demand change and it seems we're just to pussy to do such things.
 
It actually is supposed to be the oldest law, legally. The supreme courts have absolutely no good basis for ignoring it besides politics. The constitution was based on what was set out in the declaration of independence. The supreme courts have failed at doing their job somewhere down the line... Especially after the "Patriot Act"
 
The US government would never allow Mexico to legalize small amounts of drugs.. NEVER.. US gov't wants WAR any kind of war and a drug war is the most profitable.
 
^Possession of small amounts of drugs (coke, heroin, meth, weed and others) for personal use is already decriminalized in Mexico, and has been since 2009. It's sale and trafficking to the US that is causing so many problems.

The government started cracking down on cartels which caused the cartels to destabilize and begin to war with each other and the government over turf and trafficking routes and police interference.

Mexico is a sovereign country, even if US influence is heavy there, and it's a democratic country, even if the system is incredibly corrupt. I think that it's possible that Mexico would actually legalize drugs for a few reasons-

1) They are poor as hell and it would be a massive source of income.
2) Mexico is currently the most dangerous non-war zone in the world according to the Pentagon. It's obviously in the interest of the government to end the violence.
3) The people of Mexico are fed up at this point. They want change and there's a considerable social movement there to end the drug war.
4) The US is not their boss, and the government is not a US puppet government. It's clearly in their interest to legalize drug production. They can do what they want, other countries aren't bound by US law. And the US government doesn't elect Mexican politicians. If the people of Mexico overwhelmingly call for an end to prohibition, it will end.
5) It's becoming much more politically acceptable for politicians to oppose prohibition, in all of the Americas and Europe.

The problems that they'd face from the US for legalizing would most likely not be nearly as bad as the problems they've been facing from their drug war. Change has to come eventually, and at this point Mexico doesn't have much to lose by trying to do something about the violence. Caldaron won't, but this is the first step.
 
Last edited:
highhooked said:
I think if the mexican government wants to legalize small amounts of drugs they would... What makes you think the US government has that much control over what mexico does? They dont own mexico.
Click to expand...

The US government doesn't own Mexico. The top 1% of the wealthiest in the world who reside in the US do. They own Congress, the Supreme Court, every president since JFK, the EU, and the UN and hence have behind the scenes control over social, drug, and trade policies in these countries. Pharmaceutical corporations I'm sure have lobbied the War on Drugs into existence, and I'm sure these same corporations have ties with the Zetas and the Taliban (Both of the world's major drug cartels) and maybe even have ownership of a lot fot he poppy fields in Afghanistan. Oil companies lobbied the Iraq War, and so on. It's been proven the CIA works with the Zetas to smuggle cocaine, and the Taliban (Who are CLOSELY linked to the Zetas) smuggle heroin. It's super corrupt Fascism is what it is. The line between corporation and government has been obscenely blurred.
 
levictus said:
It's stupid to vote for someone based solely on one particular issue, especially someone as inflexible and provincial as Ron Paul.
Click to expand...

Here are the reasons I am voting for Ron Paul, since you so quick to dismiss everyone who supports him just because of his name being mentioned:

-I want to decide for MYSELF not do smoke crack or shoot heroin. I don't need the federal government telling me what I can and cannot do
-The war on drugs is globally destructive, and even moreso: socially.
-Whatever I do in the privacy of my own home is not the government's business.
-I don't want to work 3 months out of the year to pay an unconstitutional income tax
-I'm tired of the wars overseas
-I want a currency backed by a precious metal, not faith. Faith has proven to be very destructive when taken out of context liek our monetary system.
-I want 9/11 to be reinvestigated
-I wasnt more transparency in my government.

But the one thing that trumps all of it:

-I want to vote for a candidate that is going to try to deliver EVERYTHING he says he is going to.

Don't tell me I'm stupid for wanting the government off my back and out of my wallet. You can go ahead and vote for a corporate chronie, or not vote at all. But those two things are the reasons why we need someone like Ron Paul so badly in the first place. What's the worst that will happen if he is elected? The troops coming home? A solid currency? A restoration of ALL of your personal rights and civil liberties? No more nation building? Restoring power to the middle class by promoting the free market and small business owners?

Does that sound THAT terrible to you to where you'd rather not vote at all or vote for an idiot than vote for someone who at least has genuinely good intentions?

My main reason to support the man IS drug policy. Wanna know why? When she was 18, an old girlfriend of mine died of a fentynol overdose. She thought she bought a bag of heroin. If drugs were legal, she would need an ID saying she is 21 to buy it, which she didn't have. She also would have gotten quality, pure product without fentynol in it, so maybe she wouldn't have overdosed that night. Maybe she also wouldn't have been so embarassed by our "Pro drug war status quo" society and not kept it a secret from everyone, including me. I found out she was doing it when her father called me telling me she overdosed. And maybe...juuuuuuuust maybe.... If she would have decided to go to rehab in a society with sensible drug policy, she could have gotten the REAL help she needed. And may not have died. I don't want our drug policies to be fixed is so I can go behind a gas station and do a bag of blow off a hookers ass. Almost no one on here is that shallow. Including you and myself. Does that sound "stupid" to you? Sure doesn't to me.
 
Last edited:
Splinterguitar69 said:
The US government doesn't own Mexico. The top 1% of the wealthiest in the world who reside in the US do. They own Congress, the Supreme Court, every president since JFK, the EU, and the UN and hence have behind the scenes control over social, drug, and trade policies in these countries. Pharmaceutical corporations I'm sure have lobbied the War on Drugs into existence, and I'm sure these same corporations have ties with the Zetas and the Taliban (Both of the world's major drug cartels) and maybe even have ownership of a lot fot he poppy fields in Afghanistan. Oil companies lobbied the Iraq War, and so on. It's been proven the CIA works with the Zetas to smuggle cocaine, and the Taliban (Who are CLOSELY linked to the Zetas) smuggle heroin. It's super corrupt Fascism is what it is. The line between corporation and government has been obscenely blurred.
Click to expand...

That sounds good in theory and i know there is conspiracy shit like that but reallyyyy its all just specualtion.
 
highhooked said:
That sounds good in theory and i know there is conspiracy shit like that but reallyyyy its all just specualtion.
Click to expand...

Yeah I won't disagree that it's mostly speculation, but think about it: If you have a super massive private corporation, it would be pretty easy to make "donations" to a politician's campaign in exchange for political favors afterward. I don't think there is an NWO conspiracy, I just think our world today is the result of corporations practicing this strategy. (I hate the man) But Michael Moore's "Capitalism: A Love Story" has particular scene in it where Reagan (or Nixon. I don't remember) gets told by the chairman of the Federal Reserve to "hurry along" during his speech. Liek the president was his lap dog. Sounds to me like someone is the reason someone else is in their position of power, and have a debt to repay through political favors.
 
What makes you think that if Ron Paul was president that drugs would be legal?

He is against prohibition. But the president couldn't end prohibition without congressional support, and there is no congressional support, or barely any. In fact, there would be massive congressional opposition. If he put it into the control of the states, then drugs would remain illegal in every single state. Maybe weed would be decriminalized, and would probably eventually be made illegal, but no state will make anything other then weed legal. Might eventually see some psychedelics legal in California, but not for a long time. In fact, California recently voted on legalizing weed and they voted no on it.

Besides, if Ron Paul was the president I would be too distracted by the economic turmoil he was causing to even care that the drug war was over. The man is a lunatic, all of the GOP candidates are. To vote for any of those people is to vote against the interests of this country and everyone in it. Ron Paul has a few views I can agree with, but they are outweighed by the vast majority of his ideas, which are ridiculous.
 
Obama won't budge on this even after hundreds of thousands dead over the long history of the War on Drugs.

After all, he's a scientifically-minded, transparent, and reasonable man who does not support Bush Era-surveillance policies or raiding state-run medical cannabis dispensaries.

Oh wait! I'm confusing him with Ron Paul (though it would help if he stopped humping that stupid fence idea and maybe dropped some other of the more iffy ideas like regarding the Civil Rights Act). Because honestly, the Drug War is the most important issue right now not addressed. It's like a magic bullet for the economy, human rights, crime, imprisonment, socioeconomic status, and livelihood.
 
I feel like Id be just beating a dead horse if I go into this too much.

Demand dictates supply because it sets prices.

"The answer to 9 out of 10 questions is money"
 
psychomimetic said:
But the president couldn't end prohibition without congressional support
Click to expand...

Theoretically a president can unilaterally de-schedule a drug; Gary Johnson has promised to do this with marijuana.
 
235360287471352662 said:
Theoretically a president can unilaterally de-schedule a drug; Gary Johnson has promised to do this with marijuana.
Click to expand...

The DEA is also an arm of the Executive iirc. The president could make changes at the top or strip the whole agency or get rid of it entirely possibly. Regardless if the reason presidents say they haven't changed this is because they don't have the power, it's bullshit. They just want to be reelected and not do anything that might god forbid shake up the system!
 
Tolerance is equated with support, so as with any loaded issue its a line to toe. If I legalized drugs, would I feel responsible for every overdose death from then on? Did FDR feel like every wifes black eye and pissed on child was his fault? Or was more good done by eliminating the criminal element than the harm that was allowed to continue?

It seems like i'm wishy washy on the issue, but in reality on most issues its hard for me to draw a hard line in the sand as there are many angles... its the nature of the beast.
 
psychomimetic said:
What makes you think that if Ron Paul was president that drugs would be legal?

He is against prohibition. But the president couldn't end prohibition without congressional support, and there is no congressional support, or barely any. In fact, there would be massive congressional opposition. If he put it into the control of the states, then drugs would remain illegal in every single state. Maybe weed would be decriminalized, and would probably eventually be made illegal, but no state will make anything other then weed legal. Might eventually see some psychedelics legal in California, but not for a long time. In fact, California recently voted on legalizing weed and they voted no on it.

Besides, if Ron Paul was the president I would be too distracted by the economic turmoil he was causing to even care that the drug war was over. The man is a lunatic, all of the GOP candidates are. To vote for any of those people is to vote against the interests of this country and everyone in it. Ron Paul has a few views I can agree with, but they are outweighed by the vast majority of his ideas, which are ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Mine and Severely Etarded's conversation on pg 1 addresses all of what you said here.

I had the same position you had on states rights, until S.E. pointed out that no state can abandon the federal constitution, and the federal constitution cannot be amended to make a state do anything. As I said before on what I was referring to earlier, I live in IL. Second worst financially stable state. We are about to have 3 counties decriminalizing marijuana. Cook county has had it decriminalized for a long time. The county couldn't afford the war on drugs, so they cut it. IL wouldn't hesitate. Neither would a lot of states.

And at least with Ron Paul you get what you ordered. Remember Obama's policies before he was elected? How he hasnt done any of it post-election? He's doing the same now to sound good and get re-elected. Remember Bush having a modest and restrained foreign policy pre-election? Remember the two wars he put us in post-election?

Fact of the matter is, all the major presidential candidates are corporate puppets except one. Ron Paul. He cant do anything by himself, but his first State of the Union address would change that. He would have a 5-10 minute speech to talk about his views on civil liberties and the war overseas. It won't be a 30 second response from a carefully worded question to screw him like you hear at primaries. I'm an actual Ron Paul supporter, and not one of those doped out kids screaming "RON PAUL DUUUUUUUDE!"(Picture stereotypical California kid with a beanie haha). I watch primaries, and have thoroughly researched all of my choices. I just feel as though he is the only genuine candidate. I'm cool with it if you disagree, but love or hate the man, he's one of the only honest politician out there right now. And he's running for President. We can't pass up the chance of our first honest President in 40 years slip through our fingers because it'll probably never happen again.
 
Last edited:
Ron Paul is very rational, and I am a libertarian. But, I think universal healthcare is a good idea, and deregulation in our corpratocracy is not working as they have too much power. Its not a good time for nil taxes and government, however prostitution and drugs prohibition and spying on citizens etc needs to stop.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top