Comments:Mexico on path to decriminalize personal possession of drugs

Wow really. I'm for legalizing weed but cocaine and heroine and what will these do for the war? --66.229.26.39 21:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't understand how so many can be in favor of legalizing cannabis and have an opposite stance on other drugs. The principle is the same: prohibition is an ideological failure. If it's banned it's more appealing. I bet a decent percentage of people support banning hardcore porn for dozens of fair reasons, but that doesn't make it a good idea. 24.30.16.34 21:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Marijuana is not harmful, as compared to cocaine and methamphetamines. Legalizing one drug really shouldn't be applied as a slippery-slope for the abolishment of all drug prohibition in general, because this prohibition does actually have a legitimate function -- to prevent the populace from suffering a lethal addiction. In that same sense, I believe tobacco and alcohol should be prohibited. 70.153.98.230 22:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * In response to 24. How we can live in a nation that Tobacco and alcohol are legal and kill thousands (and I'm not even going to mention the FDA drugs) yet pot is illegal.--66.229.26.39 22:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Its my belief that all drugs should be legalized. Every last one of them. The U.S. government can place a nice high tax rate on them, and make much money. The people that chose to do these drugs would face alot of difficulty finding a job, making it easier for someone like me that doesnt do drugs to find a job.  Also, the people that are born with an extra dose of stupidity will find it easier to overdose on their favorite hardcore drug of choice, and will die, and some stupidity will be eliminated from the gene pool.

Stupid people die. Government makes money. Good, honest, hard working people experience an easier time finding a job. Whats not to love?--96.248.193.83 06:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Depending on the drug, decriminalisation or outright legalisation would probably be a good thing. The move proposed in this article leaves a situation in place where there is still an illegal element - the dealers. Do they propose a Netherlands-like system of coffee shops? On the other hand, I'd say for stuff at the nastier end of the scale other approaches might work - like the Swiss prescribing heroin to addicts. This introduces Quality Control - no more people overdosing, no more people getting the flesh-eating bug from contamination. In Switzerland those addicted to heroin are now aging, and there are no new young addicts. By setting up a system other than methadone and supplying all the addicts they killed the market for the drug in the country. They also made it unfashionable, and heroin is now regarded as a late-middle-aged to old person's habit. Many addicts actually work as well as getting their twice-daily fixes. --Brian McNeil / talk 07:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Read between the lines
Well on the surface this sounds good. If the law is passed by the Chamber of Deputies and signed by Calderón, Mexicans will be able to use modest amounts of certain drugs — if they can obtain them. It would still be illegal to sell the supposedly legalized drugs, meaning a person couldn't by weed or meth at a convenience store. So at the end of the day, the black market would still be intact and people would only be able to get the "legalized" drugs from the cartels.

What the Mexican government is going to have to do is legalize not only possession but sale. True legalization would destroy the black market and therefore the cartels. Why turn to one of them if you can just buy cannabis at any legitimate store?

71.96.128.236 02:05, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * So if I understand this correctly, this bill is mainly to ease the overcrowding of prisons in Mexico due to drug possession arrests? 71.252.216.16 02:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)