US - Mexico president hints legalizing drugs may be needed

E

edgarshade

Bluelighter
Joined
Aug 31, 2010
Messages
1,954
Location
UK
Reuters

By Dave Graham
Tue Sep 20, 2011 2:50am GMT
"We are living in the same building. And our neighbour is the largest consumer of drugs in the world. And everybody wants to sell him drugs through our doors and our windows," he said.

"We must do everything to reduce demand for drugs," Calderon added. "But if the consumption of drugs cannot be limited, then decision-makers must seek more solutions -- including market alternatives -- in order to reduce the astronomical earnings of criminal organizations."
Click to expand...

More...
http://af.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idAFTRE78J0KL20110920
 
Oh wow, even Mr Calderon is making a U-turn after 42.000 dead people. This makes me so happy ..

In the near future, the opinion that criminalising drugs is the wrong approach may actually become an acceptable one in our society. That's still miles to go to untill actual legalisation but at least it can be discussed without it being brushed off as 'ridiculous' or 'junkie-talk'
 
I would like to see both Mexico and Canada decrim/legalize as it might encourage the U.S. I feel like the more places that are decrim, the more the U.S. will have to fight a war in which they have no support. I mean, they're already really good at doing that but maybe this time things will be different.
 
Calderon doesnt have the time to see this through. His term expires july next year, this decriminalisation thing will be opposed by the american government who choose to ignore any reason and evidence of the methods effectiveness. If however the uk were to even slightly adopt it(which they are considering), it would be a kick in the teeth to americas lack of reason.
 
Mob Rules said:
Hasn't this guy been hinting at legalization for a few years?
Click to expand...
no, vicente Fox, the old president, has been saying it all along. There was riots when he was "voted" out, but as crooked as Mexico is I'm sure it was probably rigged for the anti-drug candidate to win... hence the riots.

Calderon just blames us for being users.

This is the first time he has hinted at:
"But if the consumption of drugs cannot be limited, then decision-makers must seek more solutions -- including market alternatives -- in order to reduce the astronomical earnings of criminal organizations"

I personally knew a ton of rich kids from Mexico, and I think they are more likely to use drugs than American teens. The only difference is typical Mexicans don't have enough cash to buy drugs, but there is a huge income gap in Mexico and despite 80% poverty, there's still probably 10% that are millionaires. A much higher number than the US. And their kids do just as many drugs as the "trust fund babies" here in the USA
 
Last edited:
Mexico is going to have to there is NO FUCKING WAY they will even hinder the cartels movement of drugs.

Underground tunnels that are impossible to find unless someone informs the police, one man flying vehicles, submarines, catapults (seriously) and just the 1000s of people that are constantly traffiking huge amounts of drugs across the border.

The shit is unreal honestly. Get the fuck over it you will never win.
 
It's about damn time, this guy started this shit by declaring a war on drugs, before that there was violence but it was small in comparison and mostly around the border. There's pretty huge public support there for anything that will end the drug violence in Mexico. That shit is crazy, they've lost more people from cartel homicides since 2006 then the US lost in the entire Vietnam war. Outrageous is the only word I can think of, the inaction and blatant provocation of violence by his government have been criminal, it's about time he starts to take some responsibility and at least recognize that maybe they made a mistake.
 
psychomimetic said:
It's about damn time, this guy started this shit by declaring a war on drugs, before that there was violence but it was small in comparison and mostly around the border. There's pretty huge public support there for anything that will end the drug violence in Mexico. That shit is crazy, they've lost more people from cartel homicides since 2006 then the US lost in the entire Vietnam war. Outrageous is the only word I can think of, the inaction and blatant provocation of violence by his government have been criminal, it's about time he starts to take some responsibility and at least recognize that maybe they made a mistake.
Click to expand...

The ATF chief or whatever just got "Reassigned" after getting busted for selling bombs and guns to the Zetas. What Caldron might be doing here is he (Like most of the US states) are being economically driven into the ground by the federal drug war. His term is almost over, and we might see a remarkable turn around on his drug policy views. Of course he will never be re elected, but it would set the stage for the people of Mexico to take over again. Once that idea is re-introduced into politics, any new presidential hopeful will HAVE to support it because around 80% of the population will stand behind it. And it's all out revolution if he flip flops after election under more US pressure.

Love him or hate him, if Ron Paul gets elected (which is plausible considering he is winning nearly EVERY straw vote with 50% of votes) the Federal War on Drugs will be repealed, and states will get to choose their drug policy. My state IL is the 2nd worst financially stable state. The state government will abandon the WOD in a heart beat. Legalization would stand a good chance too. Not just here either, I'd be willing to bet 40+ states will decriminalize all drugs, and even more than that will legalize marijuana for the tax revenue. Give it 10 years and we've got nearly all states possibly legalizing and regulating all drugs. Of course this is speculation, but hey. THat's all you can do at this point
 
Splinterguitar69 said:
Love him or hate him, if Ron Paul gets elected (which is plausible considering he is winning nearly EVERY straw vote with 50% of votes) the Federal War on Drugs will be repealed, and states will get to choose their drug policy. My state IL is the 2nd worst financially stable state. The state government will abandon the WOD in a heart beat. Legalization would stand a good chance too. Not just here either, I'd be willing to bet 40+ states will decriminalize all drugs, and even more than that will legalize marijuana for the tax revenue. Give it 10 years and we've got nearly all states possibly legalizing and regulating all drugs. Of course this is speculation, but hey. THat's all you can do at this point
Click to expand...
Actually the quickest way to overturn drug laws would be to declare them unconstitutional on the grounds they violate the inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, set out by the founding fathers in the Declaration of Independence, the oldest document known to US government. The supreme court could actually legalize tomorrow if they actually did their job correctly.
 
severely etarded said:
Actually the quickest way to overturn drug laws would be to declare them unconstitutional on the grounds they violate the inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, set out by the founding fathers in the Declaration of Independence, the oldest document known to US government. The supreme court could actually legalize tomorrow if they actually did their job correctly.
Click to expand...

Which is what Ron Paul plans to do under that premise, I'm guessing. Federal drug laws will be repealed in maybe two years because he has to gain more public support to write their congressmen and vote it to pass. If Ron Paul called out the wars overseas, the Patriot Act, the War on Terror and the War on Drugs during his first state of the union address, many people who didn't vote for him will come around, because I'm sure he will reference the success of Portugal's policy as well as the future Greek and UK policies passing very soon
 
I think it's really simple at the supreme court level. If the supreme court made a legitimate ruling it would be that all drug laws at the state/federal/local level had to be repealed and could not be enforced as they are unconstitutional. The declaration of independence (came over a decade before the constitution and 16 before the bill of rights) gave all men (and women) the right to live freely and happily so-be-it we are not negatively affecting anyone else's life. This is the oldest US law and the drug laws just dump all over it. The supreme court is supposed to rule laws like the drug laws 'unconstitutional' as they go directly against the oldest rights known to Americans.

It's really simple shit - drugs make people happy, why should people who work for their money to support their habits be thrown in jail for drugs? It's just the opposite of what we stand for...
 
severely etarded said:
I think it's really simple at the supreme court level. If the supreme court made a legitimate ruling it would be that all drug laws at the state/federal/local level had to be repealed and could not be enforced as they are unconstitutional. The declaration of independence (came over a decade before the constitution and 16 before the bill of rights) gave all men (and women) the right to live freely and happily so-be-it we are not negatively affecting anyone else's life. This is the oldest US law and the drug laws just dump all over it. The supreme court is supposed to rule laws like the drug laws 'unconstitutional' as they go directly against the oldest rights known to Americans.

It's really simple shit - drugs make people happy, why should people who work for their money to support their habits be thrown in jail for drugs? It's just the opposite of what we stand for...
Click to expand...

I definitely see your point, but I know from my understanding of the Constitution(could be wrong), things like prostitution, drug laws, gambling, and other civil liberties are left up to the states to decide how these things are controlled and regulated. If Texas wanted to keep up the fight after it's repealed on a federal level, they federally can. It depends on the state's individual constitutions that may need slight amending for drugs and other mentionables to be legalized. Especially the handful of the newer states that may have prostitution, marijuana, and opium laws depending on when the state was officially ratified. Plus, if you take a look at Supreme Court rulings int he last 10 years, they declared federal raids on medicinal marijuana shops constitutional. They will never vote criminalization as unconstitutional. The x factor is individual congressmen and congresswomen getting overwhelming support for the repeal on the drug war. Either repeal it, or no re-election for you. Most will choose to repeal it with their careers at stake. Ron Paul and Congress working together will get it done faster than the Supreme Court. If they actually functioned correctly, corporations wouldnt be people either. But I do see where you are coming from, it's just an idealistic POV the Supreme Court is in no condition to satisfy. Although youre absoluteyy right they should
 
Last edited:
Splinterguitar69 said:
I definitely see your point, but I know from my understanding of the Constitution(could be wrong), things like prostitution, drug laws, gambling, and other civil liberties are left up to the states to decide how these things are controlled and regulated. If Texas wanted to keep up the fight after it's repealed on a federal level, they federally can. It depends on the state's individual constitutions that may need slight amending for drugs and other mentionables to be legalized. Especially the handful of the newer states that may have prostitution, marijuana, and opium laws depending on when the state was officially ratified. Plus, if you take a look at Supreme Court rulings int he last 10 years, they declared federal raids on medicinal marijuana shops constitutional. They will never vote criminalization as unconstitutional. The x factor is individual congressmen and congresswomen getting overwhelming support for the repeal on the drug war. Either repeal it, or no re-election for you. Most will choose to repeal it with their careers at stake. Ron Paul and Congress working together will get it done faster than the Supreme Court. If they actually functioned correctly, corporations wouldnt be people either. But I do see where you are coming from, it's just an idealistic POV the Supreme Court is in no condition to satisfy. Although youre absoluteyy right they should
Click to expand...

I don't think states in the union are permitted to make laws that shit all over your rights though. Not if the supreme court says "hey, this is against the oldest law in the book!"

A good example was the civil rights act when they sent the national guard in Alabama/Georgia because the racist cops were beating black people. States just can't go around making nazi laws that are federally unconstitutional. Not if they want to benefit from being in the union...
 
severely etarded said:
I don't think states in the union are permitted to make laws that shit all over your rights though. Not if the supreme court says "hey, this is against the oldest law in the book!"

A good example was the civil rights act when they sent the national guard in Alabama/Georgia because the racist cops were beating black people. States just can't go around making nazi laws that are federally unconstitutional. Not if they want to benefit from being in the union...
Click to expand...

That's true. I for one wouldn't have voted for the Civil Rights Act... Not out of racism but the federal government has no business telling states what to do. That and it wasn't very effective at it's goal of a colorblind nation. Civil Rights should have been a Supreme Court thing, same with drugs as we both agree. I guess my main point is once states are allowed to have their own outlined freedoms to do as they please, the political "free market" will take over and those with views that update the status quo rather than maintain it will get elected into office. The WOD and the Patriot act have essentially established the status quo, ruining each state's "free market" politics approach where there will be a much wider variety to choose from, and not all of them are brainwashed into the current status quo. If that makes sense. I know you technically can't put "free market" into anything other than economics but the term seems fair to describe it. Blanket federal laws creating an artificial status quo keeps state-by-state politicians puppets. They will all maintain the blanket status quo set in. Which is my reasoning behind my thought on if the WOD were federally repealed, a new status quo will delevop primarily for economic reasons. But once people see that it works, you wont find very many governors running to re-criminalize drugs again, because it won't be the popular view
 
Splinterguitar69 said:
That's true. I for one wouldn't have voted for the Civil Rights Act... Not out of racism but the federal government has no business telling states what to do. That and it wasn't very effective at it's goal of a colorblind nation. Civil Rights should have been a Supreme Court thing, same with drugs as we both agree. I guess my main point is once states are allowed to have their own outlined freedoms to do as they please, the political "free market" will take over and those with views that update the status quo rather than maintain it will get elected into office. The WOD and the Patriot act have essentially established the status quo, ruining each state's "free market" politics approach where there will be a much wider variety to choose from, and not all of them are brainwashed into the current status quo. If that makes sense. I know you technically can't put "free market" into anything other than economics but the term seems fair to describe it. No blanket federal laws creating an artificial status quo keeps state-by-state politicians puppets. They will all maintain the blanket status quo set in. Which is my reasoning behind my thought on if the WOD were federally repealed, a new status quo will delevop primarily for economic reasons. But once people see that it works, you wont find very many governors running to re-criminalize drugs again, because it won't be the popular view
Click to expand...
regardless if the civil rights act passed or failed I think a government has the right to protect it's citizens if a local government is literally slaughtering it's own people, I think that's an excellent time to deploy the national guard. It's about protecting our country from tyranny. Local governments can't make laws of tyranny under the union. They are subject to the constitutional barriers of the united states as well as their own. Outside of the constitution, the states have all reserved powers. But the state and local government can't make laws that directly violate constitutionally granted freedoms, such as drug laws. If the supreme court on the federal level struck them down as 'unconstitutional', they would be struck down everywhere in the union and no longer enforceable. Unfortunately though the supreme court along with the president and congress are all bought and paid for.
 
severely etarded said:
regardless if the civil rights act passed or failed I think a government has the right to protect it's citizens if a local government is literally slaughtering it's own people, I think that's an excellent time to deploy the national guard. It's about protecting our country from tyranny. Local governments can't make laws of tyranny under the union. They are subject to the constitutional barriers of the united states as well as their own. Outside of the constitution, the states have all reserved powers. But the state and local government can't make laws that directly violate constitutionally granted freedoms, such as drug laws. If the supreme court on the federal level struck them down as 'unconstitutional', they would be struck down everywhere in the union and no longer enforceable. Unfortunately though the supreme court along with the president and congress are all bought and paid for.
Click to expand...

Ahh I get you now. Okay. I think then we are on the same page where those are the two major routes drug law reform in the US will come from; Supreme Court or Congress. But one of these two will only be pushed into possibility by having someone like Ron Paul in the White House. People argue he doesn't have enough power to pass all the legislation he plans to, but you will definitely hear from him on TV much more often than past presidents having more time than 60 seconds in a rigged debate to explain why his views are going to turn the country around. People will wake up a bit, and the people in the US still in fact do have more power than the government. All they need to do is recognize the issues and on a much larger scale. 60% of your district wants marijuana legalization and you dont think so? Have fun getting elected in that district. See what I mean?
 
Splinterguitar69 said:
Love him or hate him, if Ron Paul gets elected (which is plausible considering he is winning nearly EVERY straw vote with 50% of votes) the Federal War on Drugs will be repealed, and states will get to choose their drug policy. My state IL is the 2nd worst financially stable state. The state government will abandon the WOD in a heart beat. Legalization would stand a good chance too. Not just here either, I'd be willing to bet 40+ states will decriminalize all drugs, and even more than that will legalize marijuana for the tax revenue. Give it 10 years and we've got nearly all states possibly legalizing and regulating all drugs. Of course this is speculation, but hey. THat's all you can do at this point
Click to expand...

It's stupid to vote for someone based solely on one particular issue, especially someone as inflexible and provincial as Ron Paul.
 
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...
Paul get's taken out of context a lot. He's not going to kill off everyone by killing social security if he's elected. People are dependent on the system and any 'looney' ideas he would try to introduce would be done slowly because conservatives typically don't like to change things quickly. Instead gradually.

I would hope he would get something done about legalization though. That's one of the biggest issues imo.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top