Mexican War on Drugs

"By JULIE WATSON, The Associated Press
12:21 p.m. August 26, 2009

MEXICO CITY — Mexico now has one of the world's most liberal laws for drug users after eliminating jail time for small amounts of marijuana, cocaine and even heroin, LSD and methamphetamine.

"All right!" said a grinning Ivan Rojas, a rail-thin 20-year-old addict who endured police harassment during the decade he has spent sleeping in Mexico City's gritty streets and subway stations.

But stunned police on the U.S. side of the border say the law contradicts President Felipe Calderon's drug war, and some fear it could make Mexico a destination for drug-fueled spring breaks and tourism.

Tens of thousands of American college students flock to Cancun and Acapulco each year to party at beachside discos offering wet T-shirt contests and all-you-can-drink deals.

"Now they will go because they can get drugs," said San Diego Police Chief William Lansdowne. "For a country that has experienced thousands of deaths from warring drug cartels for many years, it defies logic why they would pass a law that will clearly encourage drug use." "

Seriously - they made meth legal 20 miles from my house?? That drug is so freaking dangerous. I'd say 8 out of 10 foster court case files that I read have the kids taken from the parents because of meth.

I understand freedom of the press - but I sure hope that all the kids here miss this story so they don't get themselves into something they can't get out of. :mad:

Just like alcohol prohibition, the war on drugs has actually increased crime. I think it's time the United States does away with some of it's drug laws as well. I don't care if adults use drugs. It's their life - who am I to tell them what substances they can and can't put in their body? I know drug use is a stupid behavior, but you can't criminalize stupidity.

Quote:

---

Quoting 525601minutes

---

"By JULIE WATSON, The Associated Press
12:21 p.m. August 26, 2009

MEXICO CITY — Mexico now has one of the world's most liberal laws for drug users after eliminating jail time for small amounts of marijuana, cocaine and even heroin, LSD and methamphetamine.

"All right!" said a grinning Ivan Rojas, a rail-thin 20-year-old addict who endured police harassment during the decade he has spent sleeping in Mexico City's gritty streets and subway stations.

But stunned police on the U.S. side of the border say the law contradicts President Felipe Calderon's drug war, and some fear it could make Mexico a destination for drug-fueled spring breaks and tourism.

Tens of thousands of American college students flock to Cancun and Acapulco each year to party at beachside discos offering wet T-shirt contests and all-you-can-drink deals.

"Now they will go because they can get drugs," said San Diego Police Chief William Lansdowne. "For a country that has experienced thousands of deaths from warring drug cartels for many years, it defies logic why they would pass a law that will clearly encourage drug use." "

Seriously - they made meth legal 20 miles from my house?? That drug is so freaking dangerous. I'd say 8 out of 10 foster court case files that I read have the kids taken from the parents because of meth.

I understand freedom of the press - but I sure hope that all the kids here miss this story so they don't get themselves into something they can't get out of. :mad:

---

I empathize with your position tremendously. The other day, I realized that in the state in which I live, which I love, they lamentably now let people drive cars. After years and years of indisputable evidence that driving kills 40,000 people in the United States alone, they are now letting people do it in the open! Legally! In my lifetime, around a million and a half poor souls have been lost to this deadly driving business. This isn't even to take account of the other hundreds of thousands of serious injuries people suffer at the hands of this now legal activity. Tens of millions of lives have been forever changed, just in my lifetime.

I can only hope the children don't learn that this is legal and get the idea that it's okay to just drive whenever you want. After all, so many young lives have been cut painfully short because of a late night drive to the local movie store. They thought it was all good fun, a fine night out with their friends. They had no idea how addictive it is (people don't drive just once as it turns out, even though it can kill the first time you try it), and how utterly dangerous it is.

I'd appreciate it in the future if you'd avoid trying to emotionally blackmail me to shove your agenda down my throat. The "war" on drugs has been a colossal failure; fighting against what exactly? The fact that some human activities carry with them the risk of death? That some people might unwisely to choose to do something because they lack the capacity to understand moderation? I don't see you out there campaigning against driving cars even though it kills more people than drugs do, cite, and cite. Compare the year 2005, let's say. (Let's say this because it was the easiest direct comparison I could find within the constraints of dealing with such a ridiculously attempt at preying on the emotions of others).

The difference between the two is that one involves running afoul of someone's feigned morally superior way of life in which recreational pleasure wrought from modern technology is wrong. The other deals with driving.

She mentions 8 out of 10 foster cases involve the parents using meth. HOGWASH! The MADD?AA nutjobs say the same thing about alchocl. Prohibition of ANY substance has NEVER lowered crime!!! Don't believe me? Go back in time to 1919-1933? and compare the crime rate then to the crime rate after FDR repealed prohibition! He isn't considered Americas' greatest president for nothing!

Ya'll wanna know why this country is broke? It ain't because of those "commie" policys like minimum wage, social security, earned income credits that help all them worthless and lazy poor and old people feed their families! It ain't the "excessive" 35% income tax on the rich snobs either! I would like to all those rich "tea baggers" live under Roosevelts 90% income tax! No, you wanna know why this nation is on the verge of bankrputcy? It's because of stupid shit like the "war" on drugs!

Now i'm all fired up... I need another beer. LOL

Quote:

---

Quoting blueeagle

---

She mentions 8 out of 10 foster cases involve the parents using meth. HOGWASH! The MADD?AA nutjobs say the same thing about alchocl.

---

But those are a different 8 kids out of 10, you see. Follow with me here and I'm sure you'll see how elegant the solution is: in one study you have 8 children out of a total possible 10 children. In the other study, they use the other 8 children out of the same total possible 10. It's elementary.

I'm not quite sure that the numbers are accurate for assertions in any event, but it's not really important if they are. It's possible that both sets are right because neither condition excludes another. For instance, it's entirely possible to be both an alcoholic and a drug addict all at the same time.

Quote:

---

Quoting ashman165

---

For instance, it's entirely possible to be both an alcoholic and a drug addict all at the same time.

---

True, but kind of unusual.

Quote:

---

Quoting ashman165

---

But those are a different 8 kids out of 10, you see. Follow with me here and I'm sure you'll see how elegant the solution is: in one study you have 8 children out of a total possible 10 children. In the other study, they use the other 8 children out of the same total possible 10. It's elementary.

I'm not quite sure that the numbers are accurate for assertions in any event, but it's not really important if they are. It's possible that both sets are right because neither condition excludes another. For instance, it's entirely possible to be both an alcoholic and a drug addict all at the same time.

---

Wow - this is too much. I not quoting a scientific study - I am speaking of my own true real life experience. I volunteer as a Court Appointed Special Advocate. As such I go to juvenile court where I read the case files of children who have been removed from their homes. Their cases run the gamut from some following case plans to be reunited and some having their parental rights revoked and the kids being placed for adoption.

I have PERSONALLY read hundreds of these files. I have personally counted 80% of the cases involving METH.
A "normal" person can drink without it devastating their life.
A "normal" person can operate a car without endangering other people.

A METH user is not capable of either.:wallbang:

Quote:

---

Quoting 525601minutes

---

Wow - this is too much. I not quoting a scientific study - I am speaking of my own true real life experience. I volunteer as a Court Appointed Special Advocate. As such I go to juvenile court where I read the case files of children who have been removed from their homes. Their cases run the gamut from some following case plans to be reunited and some having their parental rights revoked and the kids being placed for adoption.

I have PERSONALLY read hundreds of these files. I have personally counted 80% of the cases involving METH.
A "normal" person can drink without it devastating their life.
A "normal" person can operate a car without endangering other people.

A METH user is not capable of either.:wallbang:

---

Citation that meth uses are incapable of doing so? No really, you like to assert, but you dislike providing a single shred of evidence to support your claim. Personal experience, incidentally, isn't proof. It's an appeal to authority: I went through this and know what happened; trust me.

Incidentally, the involvement of methamphetamine doesn't imply the causation of methamphetamine. Correlation isn't causation. It's like saying that because weapons are used in armed robberies, they are therefore the cause of armed robberies.

Why do you write it as METH? It isn't an acronym. I mean, other than the idea that caps lock is cruise control to win. But you're forgetting all the other drugs out there included in the same argument.

Essentially, you're saying that it is impossible for even one person out of the roughly 7 billion people alive to responsibly use methamphetamine. One wonders then why it's a prescribed drug since not a single extant person can handle the awesome, irresistible power of it. You know, except for all of the people who have used and do use it responsibly.

Also, where's this citation that a normal person can use a car without endangering someone's life? Or is your argument that the millions upon millions of crashes per year are caused exclusively by people who aren't normal? Again, you're appealing to people's emotions. And the No True Scotsman fallacy is lovely to see in action.

Quote:

---

Quoting ashman165

---

Why do you write it as METH? It isn't an acronym. I mean, other than the idea that caps lock is cruise control to win.

---

I wrote it as METH because I am YELLING at you!:eek:

Quote:

---

Quoting 525601minutes

---

I wrote it as METH because I am YELLING at you!:eek:

---

I guess that's better than trying to present evidence to support your claim inasmuch as all available evidence cuts squarely against your position. All you have left is yelling at people and trying to emotionally blackmail them through logical fallacies and desperate sounding claptrap.