Wednesday, May 03, 2006

Mexico's Fox balks at signing drug law

Could we just stay the fuck out of other countries domestic affairs? And if we are going to stick our nose in, why not address real problems, like Mexico's woefully backwards attitudes about rape? But raping and killing are ok, as long as you aren't carrying a couple of ounces of pot.

Posted by

12 comments:

John Howard said...

Or kidnapping.

somewaterytart said...

You can also have a teaspoon of heroin and two pounds of peyote.

And people are freaking out about American kids going down there and getting fucked up. As if it could get any worse than drinking tequila straight from the bottle for three dollars, then throwing up in the gutter and waking up bleeding and missing one's credit cards. Umm, hello, SDSU students have been doing that for years.

Chris Howard said...

As if it could get any worse than drinking tequila straight from the bottle for three dollars, then throwing up in the gutter and waking up bleeding and missing one's credit cards.

LOL.

puzzled said...

As for butting in to other countries' affairs, we Canadians have a gripe there too.

Storm said...

More B.S.

Rather than deal with the problem of our border with Mexico, our government is trying to get a piece of feel good legislation passed in Mexico.

Does any one seriously think the bag guys really give a damn about this new law?

If you go you have drinking too much tequilla and smoking too much Peyote.

Chris Howard said...

Actually our gov't is trying to block a piece of legislation in Mexico. And it's not about bad guys, it's about decriminalizing posession of small amounts of certain drugs so that the Mexican police can focus on enforcement of more important things. Of course, if they really cared about the drug problem, they would legalize drugs and spend all of the money currently wasted on enforcement to prevent and treat drug addiction.

Storm said...

Excuse if I sound rude but as always I find myself with 2 questios..

Do liberals even read comments by coservatives?

Can Liberals ever see the Big Picture?

It is true we can never agree on definitions of things like what a bad guy is but consider what is the purpose of this legislation.

It has no purpose the police in Mexico do not bust some time folks hell they do ot even bust the big fish. Do you really believe this new law will change a thing in Mexico?

I do agree with you all that it is odd that the current administratio is pursuing this course of action with respect to the laws in another country especially a law that serves no purpose. I think it reveals how pathetically inept the current adminisration is in passing legislation here. They are seeking to claim some sort of victory by influeincing a pointless law in Mexico. I doubt true coservatives would be impressed.

Storm said...

As for your why do we not just give the dope users a hug instead of putting them in jail.

As I am for smaller government ( no I did not get it with Bush and I am pissed) so I too am suspectible to the seductive heroin of this libertary view....the problem is a little thing called.....Reality.

There are but few examples of people that can maintain an ecoomically productive lifestyle while addicted to drugs..generally they break into your home an take your stuff to pawn for drug money. Or they endanger your life and the lives of others while stoned.

The only current living example that conforms to your ideal is Rush Limbaugh who managed to perform stoned and presumaby never endangered any one. (except himself)

Patrick Kennedy would be in the list as well but he has a habit of getting into cars after getting stoned.

Do you think Patrick Kennedy will be crimially charged like Rush....Fat chance.

John Howard said...

Well, if you want to talk about reality. First of all I think you're ridiculously wrong In your general impression of drug addicts, sure a lot of them are probably exactly as you describe, but not all of them are. Also, notalldrug users are addicts, and I think there are plenty of drug users, particularly pot smokers, who are perfectly functional. And anyway, isn't breaking into your home and taking your stuff already against the law? So punish them if they do that, and if they're not doing that, then they're not the people you describe. But back to your point about reality. In reality, how many people are deterred by our current drug laws (or Mexico's)? Sure doesn't seem like many. Education would be much more effective if you ask me.

Rush Limbaugh is a dick, whether he's on drugs or not.

I don't know if Kennedy will be or has been charged with anything, and I don't know too much about the specifics. From what little I do know,I think he should be charged with something. I also think he should resign from Congress. However, comparing Rush Limbaugh's case with Kennedy's is a little ridiculous, they're not alike in any way, except that both guys used drugs.

Chris Howard said...

I have to start looking at these older comment threads more often.

I second what John said. And another thing - drugs cost a lot because they're illegal. Even if most drug users were breaking into houses to get their drug money (which I don't concede), they wouldn't need to if drugs were legal. Or am just missing all the alcoholics who keep stealing and pawning my stuff? Berke Breathed had a running gag in Bloom County about the drug cartels support for drug laws, or as they called them, price supports. But there's a larger principle here. The government has no right to tell people what they can and can't put into their bodies. What they can do is criminalize behavior as it relates to their interactions with other people. Our government, and really all governments, claim the right to do things simply because they have the power to do so.

Storm said...

Why not compare Rush and Kennedy? Both admitted publically to abusing Prescription drugs before prosecution could begin. Both are public figures. Both sought treatment before prosecution could begin.

Your feelings about Rush should play no part in how you think law should be administered.

The only difference I sighted was that Kennedy chose to operate a motor vehicle after consumption thereby endangering others.

Storm said...

Let me try a different angle.

People who smoke can still perform their economic functions but we still have banned where people can use cigarettes.

People can use alcohol and we have various laws who when how etc and even laws about being drunk and disorderly.

Drunk people can be dangerous but here is thing ever try to talk to someone on Meth or Cocaine. Just imagine going to the movies with your family and having a 300 pound meth addict sitting next to you. These drugs are criminalized because of the hallucinations that might cause someone to think you are covered with spiders or something. Sure any one might try to assault you but ever try to fight someone on Meth. You will not win unless you have a gun and even then subjects have continued to fight after receiving normally mortal wounds.

C. Howard where did you draw the legal arguement of "The government has no right to tell people what they can and can't put into their bodies" ?

Most governments disagree with you with the exception of what is it Denmark or Belgium.