• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Mexico Decriminalizes All Drugs!

Do you want the United States to decriminalize all drugs?

  • Yes

    Votes: 24 50.0%
  • No

    Votes: 18 37.5%
  • Other

    Votes: 6 12.5%

  • Total voters
    48
It's not Uncle Sam's job to stop you from your own stupidity.

To some degree, yes, it actually is.

If you are a danger to yourself or others, the local authority needs to step in and protect you, even from yourself.

That is a valid state interest.

The one who's wrong is you for wanting to harm yourself, not the state for trying to keep you safe.
 
Last edited:
There is no firearm equivalent to chemical dependency.

kitten_top_hat.jpg

dining-room-table-argument-.jpg


I win.
 
There's a black market for murder too, if you really want to you can go out and hire an assassin to kill someone. Should we just give up on our "war on murder"?

Murder is not a behavior that can be described of as addictive (unless of course you are a ****ing psyco).
 
That's like saying we should get rid of laws against murder. It's prohibition. If people want to kill, it is their right to kill. We can apply that to every type of law. To go down that road is anarchy.
Except that killing is not a victimless crime. Drug usage happens to be a victimless crime.
 
Do you deem all illegal substances "harmful," or just certain ones?

Per the OP, we are only concerning ourselves with the specific drugs legalized by Mexico, to the minimal extent Mexico is now allowing personal possession of those specific drugs.

We are therefore not speaking of distribution. We are not speaking of manufacturing. We are not speaking of any drug which is currently legal, such as liquor, caffeine or tobacco.

Guess what folks, Mexico is not now allowing free and legal access to any and all drugs in any quantity for you to now point to them and ask "why don't we do the same".

Mexico loosened a couple possession laws, and they did so to ease the burden on their prisons, not in the name of freedom or personal rights or liberty. Mexico did not loosen a few of their personal possession laws because "the sate has no right to keep someone from harming themselves", or "it's the citizen's body so it's the citizen's choice, we'll step out of their way and let them make their own decisions".

They did so out of purely economical reasons. They could give a **** about personal freedom.

Mexico did NOT 'legalize all drugs'.
 
Last edited:
The state has a compelling interest in keeping it's citizens from becoming victims.

Ok, I actually agree with you here to a degree. You had said earlier that you weren't so concerned with marijuana, but with the harder drugs like Meth, Coke and Heroin, and I believe LSD. I've seen the effects these can cause and it is not pretty. IIRC, on the streets Amphetamine is known as "White" while Heroin is known as "Black". I have not seen Meth effects, but "Black" is bad, bad news.

The thing is, Jerry, in this comparison you site of involuntary admission to a mental hospital, that is a medical solution to a medical problem. It is not criminal until the patient commits a crime. Likewise, by at least decriminalizing these harder drugs and treating them as the medical problems they are, we don't treat as criminals until an actual crime is commited. But, and this is where we may start to agree, free use of the drugs is out of the question and they need treatment to kick the addiction.

Legalize Marijuana and Hash, LSD, Shrooms - they are not criminal. Tax them and start a domestic distribution industry. I include hallucinogenics as they are safe and useful for mind altering experiences.

Hard drugs: Coke, Meth, Crack, Heroin - decriminalize them but don't legalize them. Pour money currently going into war on drugs into treatment facilities. Treatment would include mental health, life skills and job fairs. Get them productive.

I am not a part of any conversation involving the failed government program named "the war on drugs".

The problem is one of criminalization where there ought to be health issues and treatment.
 
Last edited:
Mexico loosened a couple possession laws, and they did so to ease the burden on their prisons, not in the name of freedom or personal rights or liberty. Mexico did not loosen a few of their personal possession laws because "the sate has no right to keep someone from harming themselves", or "it's the citizen's body so it's the citizen's choice, we'll step out of their way and let them make their own decisions".

Our conversation seems to have evolved beyond the OP's post. We do have a similar problem with overburdened prisons with minimum sentencing that should perhaps continue to be part of our conversation.
 
Except that killing is not a victimless crime. Drug usage happens to be a victimless crime.
And with the govt option everyone can have the privilege of paying for rehabilitation. :mrgreen:
 
Firstly, life is a right. Having other people not do drugs isn't. Secondly, there isn't a large market for murder. There is one for drugs, therefore, a large black market.

By the same token, being able to do drugs isn't a right either. The constitution is entirely silent on the matter. Therefore, arguing that people have a right to do drugs is absurd.

Secondly, the size of the market is irrelevant. If you want to substitute speeding for murder, we can do that too. There are many, many, many more people who speed than do drugs. Should we abolish all speed limits on every road in the nation because people will just do it anyhow?
 
Why don't we ban alcohol and Tobacco? both have done far more damage to society than hard drugs no matter what way you look at it

Because they're already legal. There's a difference between making an existing legal thing illegal and legalizing something that is illegal.

Except that drug use by itself, is a victimless crime.

Except that... it's not. While the direct impact of drug use may be on the individual, society carries the cost of widespread drug use.

It has no right to ban victimless actions that people keep to themselves. As long as no one else's rights are being violated, one may do as they please. Adultery has many of the same effects on society as drug abuse, yet that's still legal.

Which is simply not the case. People can't speed because they want to. People can't just do what they want.
 
It's not Uncle Sam's job to stop you from your own stupidity.

So long as it's paying the bills, yes it is. If you want to sign off legally that you'll take 100% responsibility for your own actions, then do whatever you want. But when you overdose and you expect the city, state or federal government to come along and save your life, forget it. You're on your own.

Want to do that? Then sure, for you I don't care what you do to yourself.
 
Our conversation seems to have evolved beyond the OP's post. We do have a similar problem with overburdened prisons with minimum sentencing that should perhaps continue to be part of our conversation.

I have no problem with letting all drug users out of prison, they have no business being there in the first place. They belong in treatment programs, not behind bars.
 
By the same token, being able to do drugs isn't a right either. The constitution is entirely silent on the matter. Therefore, arguing that people have a right to do drugs is absurd.

Secondly, the size of the market is irrelevant. If you want to substitute speeding for murder, we can do that too. There are many, many, many more people who speed than do drugs. Should we abolish all speed limits on every road in the nation because people will just do it anyhow?

If one doesn't have full control of what does to oneself then you aren't living free. That's why I smoke and did even tried crack for a couple of weeks in the past. ****ing hell. I even chugged large amounts of Robitussin. And that **** is legal and did the worst to me. I would NEVER ever trick anyone into putting this **** into their body though. If only we knew what business men with sway sneak into our body. For stubborn people when you say "You can't do this." It only makes it more enticing. Applying their own personal code of honor of course.

Speed limits happen to affect people other than you very commonly. You are violating little Suzy's being when she is walking to the street from her house and taking a path behind a van. And you scream around a corner and take her out going 80 in a residential. The seize of a market is incredibly important. It goes to show you that there is a huge want for it. If all this large group of people want to do is stick **** in there body and feel better why do you gotta be a happiness **** blocker?
 
Should we abolish all speed limits on every road in the nation because people will just do it anyhow?

In non-urban areas, yes. Montana did it for years without repercussions.

In 1999, after 4 years of no numerical or posted daytime speed limit on these classifications of highways, outside of urban areas, Montana recorded its lowest fatality rate.

Research scientists and engineers have long known that there are sometimes unexpected results from changes in public policies. Ironically, the paradox of no posted speed limits and low fatalities is no surprise to the traffic safety engineering community.

For years, motorists' advocates have used engineering-based facts against artificially low speed limits. They have claimed that by raising speed limits to reasonable levels, accident and fatality rates will actually be reduced. This seemingly wild assertion has been documented by the traffic engineering profession for 50 plus years. This fact-based position has again been proven to be true by the repeal of the National Speed Limit. The nation has recorded the lowest highway fatality rate since such records have been kept.

What about the extreme of No Speed Limits on 4 lane Interstate and rural federal-aid primary two lane highways? These same fact-based engineers point to the German Autobahn, where, with no speed limits, authorities are consistently reporting lower fatality rates than comparable US highways
 
Because they're already legal. There's a difference between making an existing legal thing illegal and legalizing something that is illegal.



Except that... it's not. While the direct impact of drug use may be on the individual, society carries the cost of widespread drug use.



Which is simply not the case. People can't speed because they want to. People can't just do what they want.

Without a doubt, the societal cost of the war on drugs has far outweighed the benefits. Not only does it create a black market (where a variety of market efficiencies are completely removed), it puts regulation/control in the hands of people that are willing to murder for money.

Of course we hear of this sparingly, where a business partner has another killed to protect their market share. The difference is, when you push it to a black market, the likelihood of crimes involved in the industry being reported diminishes greatly. Instead of a business man calling the police when someone breaks in to steal his "stuff", he will act in a vigilante demeanor, and go about protecting his "turf" in the fashion of Al Capone.

The societal cost of prohibition (bootlegging kingpins) far outweighed the benefits (decreased quantity supplied at a lower price level). Not only does it create demand pull inflation, which draws specie into the industry in an inefficient fashion, but it creates a spillover effect in terms of cost of policing, murder, higher prison populations (another cost to society relative to a legalization policy), etc....
 
In non-urban areas, yes. Montana did it for years without repercussions.

And the Autobahn does it, but in neither cases is it unrestricted everywhere. Both Montana and Germany recognize that there have to be limits, which I said from the start.
 
If one doesn't have full control of what does to oneself then you aren't living free.

No such thing as complete freedom, sorry. Not unless you're off living by yourself somewhere at least. When you take part in a society, you trade some of your freedom for overall security and ease of existence. Interacting with others means you have to have some self-control, either imposed by yourself or imposed on you by others.

Don't like that, go find a deserted island somewhere that you can live by yourself and fend entirely for yourself. That's the only way you're ever going to get that illusory freedom you seem to crave.
 
No such thing as complete freedom, sorry. Not unless you're off living by yourself somewhere at least. When you take part in a society, you trade some of your freedom for overall security and ease of existence. Interacting with others means you have to have some self-control, either imposed by yourself or imposed on you by others.

Don't like that, go find a deserted island somewhere that you can live by yourself and fend entirely for yourself. That's the only way you're ever going to get that illusory freedom you seem to crave.

Or you could just quite being a happiness cockblocker. Whats wrong with respecting anything one does to oneself in private as long as it affects no others directly? If I wanted to chop off my own hand it should be legal. Would be incredibly stupid and pointless. But its mine to alter. Not yours. Not the governments. Not my mommy and daddy.

"Two of my favorite things are sitting on my front porch smoking a pipe of sweet hemp, and playing my Hohner harmonica."

-Abraham Lincoln
 
Per the OP, we are only concerning ourselves with the specific drugs legalized by Mexico, to the minimal extent Mexico is now allowing personal possession of those specific drugs.

nice attempt at reframing the discussion how you want to.. per the OP:

OP said:
Hello Everybody

Do you want the United States to decriminalize all drugs & why?
 
Last edited:
To some degree, yes, it actually is.

If you are a danger to yourself or others, the local authority needs to step in and protect you, even from yourself.

That is a valid state interest.

The one who's wrong is you for wanting to harm yourself, not the state for trying to keep you safe.

Nanny statism much? Why is it the federal government's responsibility to stop you from yourself? Why can't adult's make bad decisions for themselves? Paternalism isn't a good policy, because if people can can't be free to fail, than they can't be free at all. The Federal government controls their lives when it isn't their place
 
Or you could just quite being a happiness cockblocker. Whats wrong with respecting anything one does to oneself in private as long as it affects no others directly? If I wanted to chop off my own hand it should be legal. Would be incredibly stupid and pointless. But its mine to alter. Not yours. Not the governments. Not my mommy and daddy.

But it's not legal, like it or not. You cannot choose to go to a doctor and mutilate yourself, no matter who it affects. You can't even attempt to kill yourself in most places. You can think it's stupid and pointless, but I think most things libertarians want are stupid and pointless. Who gets to decide which is right?

Oh wait, society does and you, by agreeing to be a part of society, implicitly agree to follow it's rules or suffer the consequences. :2wave:
 
By the same token, being able to do drugs isn't a right either. The constitution is entirely silent on the matter. Therefore, arguing that people have a right to do drugs is absurd.

I said that people have a right to fail. This falls under a right to liberty. They therefore have a right to screw up their life without infringing on other's rights.

Secondly, the size of the market is irrelevant. If you want to substitute speeding for murder, we can do that too. There are many, many, many more people who speed than do drugs. Should we abolish all speed limits on every road in the nation because people will just do it anyhow?

No it's not. The black market for murder, a crime with actual victims, doesn't create many too many more problems than murder because the market is small. Drugs are big business, that many more are willing to get into.
 
Back
Top Bottom