# About the legalization of cannabis



## Isla Verde

Ananda said:


> Thank you so much for your reply. I had originally been considering Ecuador or Chile but as I looked into it, I found the homeschooling and drug laws were not acceptable. . .


 Drug laws not to your liking? In what way?


----------



## Quetza

I bring you an interesting piece of news connected to the ongoing public talks about the legalization of drugs in the country. I'm translating parts of the original article in a hurry so forgive me for possible mistakes.


This May, 5, there was a manifestation held by legalization supporters at Parque de la Solidaridad in Alameda Central, D.F. That day, the park became a free zone for selling, preparing, distributing and consuming the regulated drug without police intervention.

The protest has been popular since the New York one in 1998 and this year, there were similar manifestations in 200 cities around the world including Guadalajara, Tijuana, Oaxaca and Monterrey. All to make their point that prohibitions on the consumption of cannabis only benefit criminal organizations.

"What we propose is not just a decriminalization. What we propose is a regulation, the creation of clear production, trade and consumption laws, because currently the market is regulated by criminals and that makes minors more vulnerable", explained Leopoldo Rivera, President of the Asociación Mexicana de Estudios sobre Cannabis.

Actually, he informed that several associations have presented eight iniciatives in that sense before the Congress but none have prospered. 

As one of the main promoters, Leopoldo has beein in 12 manifestations, all held under the PAN government. This time, under President Peña Nieto's administration, there was fear there would be problems with the authorities but althought there were soldiers patrolling Juarez Avenue, no incidents were reported. 

“The President must start a different drug policy in which consumers won't be criminalised, in which there will be a dialogue with society, because tradicionally regular people have no say on the subject", Rivera insisted. "Under last government, there was an increment on consumption and delinquency, prices didn't go down and offer didn't diminish. The strategy was without a doubt a failure."




(Source: mainly ?Aquí todos estamos a 10 centímetros del suelo? - Grupo Milenio) 


Expats, what do you think about this iniciative and the general dialogue about the drug controversy in Mexico?


----------



## Ananda

My exhusband needs mariuana for medicine.


----------



## Isla Verde

Ananda said:


> No, he'll be moving with me when I choose a destination.


As things stand now, I believe marijuana use is still illegal in Mexico, so it wouldn't be a good idea for expats to use it here, even for medical reasons.


----------



## cscscs007

Illegal and needs to stay that way. You can put frosting on a turd and call it whatever you want, but it's still a turd.


----------



## Quetza

Actually, personal use in small doses is legal and so is controlled medical use. The law states that 5g for cannabis and 500ml for cocaine is legal, as far as I know.

There's even a certified doctor that uses cannabis in the community center next door, have heard of others too and it's a very open business... I would still check that the regulations haven't changed.


----------



## FHBOY

cscscs007 said:


> Illegal and needs to stay that way. You can put frosting on a turd and call it whatever you want, but it's still a turd.


Respectfully disagree. This attitude worked so well in the USA during Prohibition, didn't it? 

Now, a well regulated drug distribution network, the drug being alcohol, is a major source of federal, state and local tax dollars. I believe that far more damage has been done by abusers of alcohol than by users, even heavy ones, of marijuana.

A well regulated distribution network for marijuana is a sensible way to deal with what is this problem and it would be revenue producing also. It would not make drug dealers go away, as hard drugs should stay illegal, but it would close up a revenue stream, verdad?

Note: Please refrain from the "slippery slope" argument of marijuana to hard drugs. Studies debunk, I am told, that argument.


----------



## TundraGreen

cscscs007 said:


> Illegal and needs to stay that way. You can put frosting on a turd and call it whatever you want, but it's still a turd.


Should we bring back prohibition too? That worked about as well as the criminalization of marijuana usage.


----------



## Ananda

No, it isn't. Mexico decriminalized pretty much everything excepts selling.


----------



## cscscs007

Possession of small amounts of marijuana is not illegal in Mexico, but the sale of any amount is illegal. A foreigner would probably sit in jail, and then get deported. Dealing with the drug trade in Mexico can result in loss of your head. Decapitation is a particular favorite choice of punishment for persons involved in the drug trade. I like my head too much to risk someone taking it from me.


----------



## cscscs007

If your only reason for going to Mexico is to smoke weed, you are going for the wrong reason.


----------



## mickisue1

Quetza said:


> Actually, personal use in small doses is legal and so is controlled medical use. The law states that 5g for cannabis and 500ml for cocaine is legal, as far as I know.
> 
> There's even a certified doctor that uses cannabis in the community center next door, have heard of others too and it's a very open business... I would still check that the regulations haven't changed.


Do the medical practitioners get their supplies from elsewhere than the cartels? I would assume that the answer is yes, but wonder how it's accomplished.


----------



## mickisue1

cscscs007 said:


> Illegal and needs to stay that way. You can put frosting on a turd and call it whatever you want, but it's still a turd.


Hmmmm. Do you feel the same way about alcohol, which is considerably more dangerous of a drug?

Not merely the ongoing physical effects on the user, but the fact that, as a CNS depressant, it can lead to aggressive behavior. You are much more likely to be run down, stabbed or shot by an angry drunk than by someone who's stoned.

DISCLAIMER: I don't use marijuana, because I have a very low threshold for acting like a dope with either that or alcohol. One glass of wine, and TLofML and my kids are watching and listening for me to say something stupid.


----------



## Coconutz

Eventually marijuana will be legal everywhere. I have smoked it for a long time and......I forgot what I was going to say.


----------



## Isla Verde

Coconutz said:


> Eventually marijuana will be legal everywhere. I have smoked it for a long time and......I forgot what I was going to say.


That happens to me all the time, and I've never smoked marijuana  .


----------



## Quetza

TundraGreen said:


> I must have missed something. Accusations and insults are prohibited.



The user cscscs007 did reply with two comments that sounded like accusations and agressive. It could be a problem with conveying tone through written message but saying that the OP wanted to come to Mexico just to smoke weed was uncalled for in my opinion.

About insults to OPs intelligence, I don't know, I feel that the other posts were ok.


----------



## Quetza

Totally agree with FHBOY (and Coconutz  ) 

I don't think the current situation is doing much good to anyone, it would be a lor easier to control the way it's sold and distributed if it was regulated instead of banned. And everyone knows where to get marihuana and who sells it, the cops are truly the last to ever know anything!

And just think of all those taxes that could be collected! Why the government always comes up with the shadiest tricks to collect more taxes when there are options like this one, I can't imagine.

@mickisue1: Now that I think about it, I do have seen many more aggresive drunks than "pachecos"...


----------



## cscscs007

In order for the US to legalize marijuana one would have to overturn the precedence set by the US Supreme Court. Two cases come to mind.

One is United States v. Oakland Cannibas Buyers Association 532 U.S. 483 (2001) where the Court ruled that claiming a marijuana medical necessity defense even though legalized by the state in this case California, is illegal under the federal Controlled Substance Act of 1970. 

The other is Gonzales v. Raich 545 U.S. 1 (2005) where the Supreme Court ruled that under the Commerce Clause under the US Constitution, Congress can criminalize the production and use of home-grown cannibas even where states pass laws legalizing it's use. The states California, Maryland, Washington, Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi filed briefs supporting the states legal rights to marijuana legalization. They lost.

So, a person plants some weed, cultivates it, harvests it, hey he or she is not selling it so it's ok, right. Until the Feds come busting in and destroy their house, seize property, and confiscate those precious marijuana plants. Then they better even not think about having a weapon such as a pistol or rifle, or night vision goggles basically nothing that can be used for hunting. Why? Because not only is it an additional charge, but possession of firearms will be used in Court to say that guns were present to protect the marijuana. This will enhance the drug charge and result in even more time given upon sentencing. 

A person convicted under federal law for marijuana is a felon. The only person that has the ability to remove this conviction is the President. Try and move to Mexico with a federal conviction on your record. That's going to be a problem. 

Getting caught in Mexico, being considered a foreigner isn't going to be overlooked. The Policia can arrest you, and lock you up for months before even getting your case heard by a judge. The Mexico justice system is notoriously slow. Is placing a call to the US embassy or consulate going to help? Very doubtful.

The Centro de investigacion y docencia en economicas (CIDE) and the Colectivo de Estudios Drogas y Direcho (CEDD) found that in 2010 the crimes of possession and consumption accounted for 71% of investigations initiated by the Ministerio Publico. So, out of the 18,343 decisions handed down, 80.7% was for a single crime meaning the only crime involved was a single instance drug offense.

But hey, let's get to what really matters. What kind of sentence can you get for drugs in Mexico? The maximum prison sentence for the crime of production,, commerce, supply, and trafficking of drugs is 25 years. Rape which is a violent crime carries a sentence of 14 years, Robbery is 15 years. Mexico's legal system operates diferently than the US. In the United States you are considered innocent until proven guilty. In Mexico you are guilty until you prove you are innocent. Mexico's police force has a reputation of fairness? I don't think so. 

You that disagree with me are welcome to, but I would just ask you to put the reefer down, come back to reality, and see it as it is. Yeah, I know you won't get caught because you are careful. Either justice system, Mexico's, the US, or the cartels all are unappetizing to me.


----------



## GARYJ65

Ananda said:


> No, it isn't. Mexico decriminalized pretty much everything excepts selling.


I'm a Mexican citizen; Mexico does not allow mariguana to be bought or sold in any case or amounts, if you buy any you have to get it illegally and risk yourserf to be punished, Some poster here said you were allowed to carry small amounts for personal use; I would not try to explain this to a police officer, military staff or PGR agent, that would be one of my worst nightmares, and being a foreigner would double the nightmare factor.
My advice: do not buy or consume mariguana in Mexico until it has been legalized, period. There is no room for further discussion about how it should be, things are as they are right now.
One las thing: in Mexico, wether for medical reasons or not, people who consume mariguana are not well tolerated by mexican nationals I mean, you cannot go around explaining to people that you have a prescription for it, and even if you did, the great majority would not understand it. As I said, that's how it is. Personally, there are a few cases where I don't care going against the flow ( bullfighting for example) but mariguana consumption would not be one of them.


----------



## Quetza

GARYJ65 said:


> I'm a Mexican citizen; Mexico does not allow mariguana to be bought or sold in any case or amounts, if you buy any you have to get it illegally and risk yourserf to be punished, Some poster here said you were allowed to carry small amounts for personal use; I would not try to explain this to a police officer, military staff or PGR agent, that would be one of my worst nightmares, and being a foreigner would double the nightmare factor.
> My advice: do not buy or consume mariguana in Mexico until it has been legalized, period. There is no room for further discussion about how it should be, things are as they are right now.
> One las thing: in Mexico, wether for medical reasons or not, people who consume mariguana are not well tolerated by mexican nationals I mean, you cannot go around explaining to people that you have a prescription for it, and even if you did, the great majority would not understand it. As I said, that's how it is. Personally, there are a few cases where I don't care going against the flow ( bullfighting for example) but mariguana consumption would not be one of them.




I'm a mexican citizen too and I agree with you to some extent. Yes, it's not criminal to have it and it's true that buying it would be a very risky business.
But OP didn't say that they wanted or needed to carry around the marihuana for smoking but a medical prescription. I, too, wouldn't recommend saving any amount at home or going around carrying it since I'm sure being a foreigner would complicate matters. 

My understanding of things is that using the marihuana for a medical prescription (your doctor provides only the amount you need for that treatment or you just consume it in your visit) is legal, about it being frowned upon, yeah... I'd probably wouldn't go around saying it unles I'mm with like-minded people.

But that's why I suggested the best thing to do is checking the laws very well and asking about this matter at the inmigration office. 

Ananda, I hope you can find a solution that will let you move to Mexico without putting yourself at any risk. Good luck


----------



## Quetza

cscscs007, you do raise some valid points however we are not discussing if the users of the forum could or should start consuming now that this issue is still a gray one, we are discussing about the convenience (or non convenience) of the legalization and what effect would it have.

You seem to think we are advocating for folks to start just growing marihuana plants in their gardens!

After all, changes in laws regarding, to put an example of a legislation that seemed at some point unlikely to be changed, gay marriage also had to overturn a few precedences set by the Supreme Court and it was only passed, here and in the US, after several attempts.

And your statistics prove what we are saying! How much energy and resources are poured into the hellhole that is the drug war and how many police officers are employed almost exclusively to catch drug sellers? Wouldn't the legalization and regulation of soft drugs such as cannabis free those resources in the long run so the justice system can focus on those much more important crimes you mention? I don't see how our frankly inadequate sentences for rape or robbery are any argument against legalization.

And once again, we are talking about legalization and taking power away form cartels, not about fooling the current system and smoking some joints.


----------



## mickisue1

Actually, in the US, at any rate, the more states legalize the use of marijuana for medical purposes, the harder it will be for the federal government to defend it's criminalization.

The progress in the past few years for gay marriage brings to mind the way it can work. First, a few "progressive" states legalize it, only to be shut down by their state Supreme Courts. Then the banning contingent tries to strengthen the laws against it in other states, succeeding in the more conservative ones, and failing in others.

That can have a boomerang effect: my state (HOORAY) just passed a law legalizing gay marriage, less than a year after we voters voted down a constitutional amendment banning it.

Obviously, being able to marry the person you love is of higher importance than being able to smoke a little weed and not go to jail. But both issues are about government overreaching its grasp in regulating actions that are non-threatening to the social fabric. (Of course, encouraging stable families with all gender preferences strengthens that social fabric.) And THAT should be the major criterion for declaring something to be criminal.


----------



## pappabee

Ladies, Gentlemen, boys and girls, let’s get a few bits of information together. The Volstead Act was a total failure. Not only because it didn't work but because it set the stage for the largest growth of crooks in the US in the past 100 years. 

I don’t see the US or most other countries legalizing MJ but I do see many of them decriminalize it. The real problem is cost. The US DEA spent 7.7 Billion dollars in 2011 policing it. That doesn’t take into account all of the other agencies. What do you think that the US could do with that additional money? (OK I know some of you will say build another $500,000 toilet.) 

According to the Canadian border authorities they spend over ¾ of their time and effort policing the import and export of MJ. 

Here we are policing something that has less impact than tobacco and booze and it’s taking us the cost of another Gulf War to do it. According to comments made by some other countries they cannot legalize MJ until the US does it. Too much conflict. 

It is estimated that the US, Mexico and Canada spend well over 30 Billion dollars each year attempting to police MJ and they catch less that ½ of what comes in. 

What a total waste of time, energy, money and effort.


----------



## Longford

There are many forms of addiction, use of marajuana is just one. I've never met a user of pot who wasn't one. But the same can be said for alcohol, cigarettes, etc. I'm not for legalization of marajuana but I can't offer a good solution to the problem. Marajuana, by the way, isn't the big drug problem in Mexico as regards to the war and terrorism. Mostly, its harder drugs and synthetics. I think that's why it was President Calderon who suggested the federal government relax enforcement regarding its recreational use and I think the former President of the D.F., the Mayor so to speak, either stopped enforcing the law or severely relaxed penalties (I'm forgetting which it was). Foreigners using pot, though ... likely face higher risks, mostly due to widespread police and legal system corruption.


----------



## TundraGreen

Longford said:


> …Marijuana, by the way, isn't the big drug problem in Mexico as regards to the war and terrorism. Mostly, its harder drugs and synthetics. …


According to a story from National Public Radio a few years ago:
"Marijuana and cocaine are the two largest sources of revenue for the cartels, generating billions of dollars in illicit profits each year. But some analysts say marijuana may be the cartels' greatest source of cash in part because the Mexican gangs control the production, trafficking and distribution of the drug. The cocaine they move has a higher street value, but they initially have to buy it from the Colombians."


----------



## alexdz

TundraGreen said:


> According to a story from National Public Radio a few years ago:
> "Marijuana and cocaine are the two largest sources of revenue for the cartels, generating billions of dollars in illicit profits each year. But some analysts say marijuana may be the cartels' greatest source of cash in part because the Mexican gangs control the production, trafficking and distribution of the drug. The cocaine they move has a higher street value, but they initially have to buy it from the Colombians."


Which just goes to show how much serious criminal enterprise would be reduced just by legalizing something that is arguably less dangerous than the already legal alcohol. You can probably make the case that it's less dangerous than driving a car, which kills 35000 a year in the US.


----------



## alexdz

cscscs007 said:


> In order for the US to legalize marijuana one would have to overturn the precedence set by the US Supreme Court. Two cases come to mind.
> 
> One is United States v. Oakland Cannibas Buyers Association 532 U.S. 483 (2001) where the Court ruled that claiming a marijuana medical necessity defense even though legalized by the state in this case California, is illegal under the federal Controlled Substance Act of 1970.
> 
> The other is Gonzales v. Raich 545 U.S. 1 (2005) where the Supreme Court ruled that under the Commerce Clause under the US Constitution, Congress can criminalize the production and use of home-grown cannibas even where states pass laws legalizing it's use. The states California, Maryland, Washington, Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi filed briefs supporting the states legal rights to marijuana legalization. They lost.
> ...


The Supreme Court connection is irrelevant. Those just confirm the federal supremacy over state law. If the federal laws change then this doesn't matter.


----------



## mickisue1

Longford said:


> There are many forms of addiction, use of marajuana is just one. I've never met a user of pot who wasn't one. But the same can be said for alcohol, cigarettes, etc. I'm not for legalization of marajuana but I can't offer a good solution to the problem. Marajuana, by the way, isn't the big drug problem in Mexico as regards to the war and terrorism. Mostly, its harder drugs and synthetics. I think that's why it was President Calderon who suggested the federal government relax enforcement regarding its recreational use and I think the former President of the D.F., the Mayor so to speak, either stopped enforcing the law or severely relaxed penalties (I'm forgetting which it was). Foreigners using pot, though ... likely face higher risks, mostly due to widespread police and legal system corruption.



I have met many who use it only occasionally, Longford.

There are, of course, those who use it regularly and to excess.


----------



## cscscs007

Can you show proof that cartel activity will cease to operate if marijuana is legalized? Facts, not conjecture.


----------



## TundraGreen

cscscs007 said:


> Can you show proof that cartel activity will cease to operate if marijuana is legalized? Facts, not conjecture.


Legalizing marijuana won't end cartel activity anymore than ending prohibition ended the organized crime associated with it.

However, legalizing marijuana will take away a big source of revenue for cartels.


----------



## alexdz

cscscs007 said:


> Can you show proof that cartel activity will cease to operate if marijuana is legalized? Facts, not conjecture.


Can you show proof that the sun will rise tomorrow? Should we prepare for such an eventuality? Not every decision can be made with absolute knowledge, you just work with the information you have. I'm not sure why it wouldn't be obvious to anyone that legalizing a product would move the supply chain into the corporate realm and the cartels would have to move on to something else. And they will continue with the drugs that remain illegal obviously. The repeal of Prohibition didn't eliminate organized crime, but considering how much alcohol is sold as compared to illegal drugs you could make the case that those syndicates are probably smaller than they might have otherwise been. And yup, that's conjecture too. Conjecture is not without value in decision making.


----------



## cscscs007

The Supreme Court is relevant. In school children learn the Supreme Court has the power to overturn Congress and even the President. Congress would have to pass legislation legalizing marijuana, then survive a vote in both the House of Representatives and Congress, then on to the President who can sign it or veto it, and finally survive any challenges raised in the courts.

Just take a glimpse of the last 5 years on Capitol Hill. Working together to pass legislation is not a strong point. The chance of legalization is effectively 0%.


----------



## pappabee

cscscs007 said:


> Can you show proof that cartel activity will cease to operate if marijuana is legalized? Facts, not conjecture.


Come on now, how can you show facts about something that has not happened? Legalization of MJ will not reduce cartel activity but it sure will free up a lot of money and man power to go after other things. 

This whole operation is not to stop drugs but to save money and manpower. 20+ billions per year is a sizable amount of tax savings. Sure the US will probably spend it on junk but at least it's not being spent on trying to fight a war that can't be won.


----------



## cscscs007

alexdz said:


> Can you show proof that the sun will rise tomorrow? Should we prepare for such an eventuality? Not every decision can be made with absolute knowledge, you just work with the information you have. I'm not sure why it wouldn't be obvious to anyone that legalizing a product would move the supply chain into the corporate realm and the cartels would have to move on to something else. And they will continue with the drugs that remain illegal obviously. The repeal of Prohibition didn't eliminate organized crime, but considering how much alcohol is sold as compared to illegal drugs you could make the case that those syndicates are probably smaller than they might have otherwise been. And yup, that's conjecture too. Conjecture is not without value in decision making.


I have made my point, and I have used facts to support it. Until you can do the same, and not base your theory on conjecture, your argument is without merit. Cartels will not stop trafficking marijuana and to assume so is ludicrous. With your own words you have lost the topic you are trying to make.


----------



## cscscs007

The doctor could be charged for supplying and distribution of an illegal substance, couldn't he. I don't believe Mexico has a medical clause in it's law.


----------



## alexdz

cscscs007 said:


> The Supreme Court is relevant. In school children learn the Supreme Court has the power to overturn Congress and even the President. Congress would have to pass legislation legalizing marijuana, then survive a vote in both the House of Representatives and Congress, then on to the President who can sign it or veto it, and finally survive any challenges raised in the courts.
> 
> Just take a glimpse of the last 5 years on Capitol Hill. Working together to pass legislation is not a strong point. The chance of legalization is effectively 0%.


Actually what children learn in school is that the Supreme Court can overturn laws that they determine to be unconstitutional. They manage to go beyond that sometimes (e.g., Bush v. Gore I think), and I'm no lawyer so I don't understand all the ramifications, but they can't just overrule the rest of government as they please. In fact it seems to me that in this case there would have to be a constitutional amendment of prohibition (a la Volstead Act) for it to even become an issue, and in this political climate I can't even begin to imagine a successful amendment process for anything.

Oops, never mind, I see you've already won.


----------



## mickisue1

cscscs007 said:


> The doctor could be charged for supplying and distribution of an illegal substance, couldn't he. I don't believe Mexico has a medical clause in it's law.


"I don't believe" does not have the force of fact. Or law, for that matter.

It's easily googled, if you want to know for sure. 

Mexico DOES have a personal use law: under 5 gms was decriminalized in 2009. It's interesting that the law also instructed the officer who encountered the person (not only marijuana, but LSD, cocaine, methamphetamines and heroin also have specific amounts, the possession of of which is no longer criminal) to seek drug treatment.

How that translates to medical use is anybody's guess.


----------



## Isla Verde

I'd be interested in knowing how someone in Mexico who needs to use marijuana for a medical condition gets it. Is it legal to grow your own?


----------



## TundraGreen

cscscs007 said:


> The Supreme Court is relevant. In school children learn the Supreme Court has the power to overturn Congress and even the President. Congress would have to pass legislation legalizing marijuana, then survive a vote in both the House of Representatives and Congress, then on to the President who can sign it or veto it, and finally survive any challenges raised in the courts.
> 
> Just take a glimpse of the last 5 years on Capitol Hill. Working together to pass legislation is not a strong point. The chance of legalization is effectively 0%.


I am not so sure that the chance of legalization is 0%. Things sometimes turn around surprisingly quickly once the momentum starts to flow in that direction. Look at the breakup of the Soviet Union and the fall of the Berlin Wall and the recent changes in attitudes toward same-sex marriage. The recent elections in Colorado and Washington, suggest that a change may be in the works.


----------



## Longford

TundraGreen said:


> Legalizing marijuana won't end cartel activity anymore than ending prohibition ended the organized crime associated with it.
> 
> However, legalizing marijuana will take away a big source of revenue for cartels.


The cartels have branched-out broadly, into all sorts of criminal and legal enterprises. The scope of the involvement of them is tremendous. From tapping-into PEMEX pipelines and stealing hundreds of millions of US$ in petroleum products, to kidnapping on a scale not seen elsewhere on the planet, to extorsion of small and medium size businesses, to cargo theft and to investments in huge real estate projects in the country.


----------



## mickisue1

That's a good question, Isla. The reference I used doesn't address that. It was actually a graph of the countries that have laws in reference to marijuana use. With Mexico, the only reference was to possession.


----------



## cscscs007

To be honest, I could care less if people want to smoke marijuana. However, in order to live in Mexico, I must agree to follow their laws. It just so happens marijuana is illegal in Mexico, and to me risking my stay in Mexico over a joint isn't worth it.

But to proclaim legalizing marijuana without a plan or evidence to support the benefit of legalization is going to fall upon deaf ears. Making statements in reference to the sun not rising tomorrow, or it will put cartels out of the marijuana business will not perk my interest into your cause. 

Until a plan arises that is realistic and effectively deals with the use of marijuana usage whether it is for recreational use or for medical purposes, I don't see it ever making it past the hurdles it would have to jump. 

So, if you feel that 28.5 grams of marijuana in your pocket is well worth the risk of living in Mexico, you go ahead and do it. Just remember, you cannot cry foul if you suffer imprisonment and most likely, removal from Mexico. I for one will feel no pity on one who knows the risks and ignores the warnings, and then faces the consequences for their action.


----------



## FHBOY

alexdz said:


> . The repeal of Prohibition didn't eliminate organized crime, but considering how much alcohol is sold as compared to illegal drugs you could make the case that those syndicates are probably smaller than they might have otherwise been.


I worked in New Jersey a while back and sat on the boards of some non-profits next to liquor wholesalers, importers etc.. You know what we in New Jersey called them in the 30"s - Bootleggers - attached to organized crime. The repeal of Prohibition, for these individuals, made them legitimate businessmen.

This has nothing to do with anything other than things change. Today's weed pusher is tomorrow cannabis entrepreneur, with a $1 billion IPO on Wall St. Oh wait, the tobacco companies already have trademarks and copyrights for when marijuana is legalized, right?


----------



## mickisue1

5 grams is about four joints. You'd need really really big pockets to accommodate 28.5. 

BTW: it's the 5 gms that have been decriminalized.


----------



## FHBOY

Longford said:


> The cartels have branched-out broadly, into all sorts of criminal and legal enterprises. The scope of the involvement of them is tremendous. From tapping-into PEMEX pipelines and stealing hundreds of millions of US$ in petroleum products, to kidnapping on a scale not seen elsewhere on the planet, to extorsion of small and medium size businesses, to cargo theft and to investments in huge real estate projects in the country.


The same can be said of the USA (I cannot speak for Canada). This philosophy was over simplified in the "Godfather" trilogy when Michael Corleone turns "legit" in his business dealings. Most people are aware that those in organized crime, the oldsters of organized crime, have taken the gains of "the life" and invested it things that are, while not necessarily moral, none the less legal.

Yes, the same thing will happen to the Mexican cartels in this case. Their marijuana trade will become legal, but they will not give it up, just wear new clothes of legitimacy. 

That being a given, I have a question: If they are making a legitimate gold mine in the legitimate business of marijuana and the resultant product yields the economic and social consequences we have described above, then why not let them do it? Yes, the legitimate profit will spill into the criminal operations, but then, doesn't the legitimate profits of some of the major international corporations, and indeed governments, also do that?

This is an interesting question indeed and one I think we will see resolved in about 15 years or less. We, of a certain age, are dying out. Our "replacements" have different values - as shown in things like same sex marriage and gun control. 

I think I'll be just old enough to have a legal doobie in my extended care facility before I kick the bucket!


----------



## Longford

I'm thinking the discussion of marajuana might best be confined to one discussion, the other one started to talk about legalization, use, etc.

So, I'm going to offer the suggestion .... :focus: of the discussion thread.


----------



## TundraGreen

cscscs007 said:


> …So, if you feel that 28.5 grams of marijuana in your pocket is well worth the risk of living in Mexico, you go ahead and do it. Just remember, you cannot cry foul if you suffer imprisonment and most likely, removal from Mexico. I for one will feel no pity on one who knows the risks and ignores the warnings, and then faces the consequences for their action.


I think you are preaching to the choir on this. I know my views in favor of decriminalizing marijuana are driven entirely by a desire to get rid of the crime associated with it. I have no interest in using it personally. I even lived in San Francisco in the 60s and never tried it then. I am unlikely to take it up now, whatever the law does.


----------



## cscscs007

It amazes me that people on this forum think it is acceptable behavior to use marijuana in Mexico when they know that it is illegal (buying marijuana is a crime, even for personal use). However when someone posts about renewing an FMM which is not against the law, receives an outcry of no fair.


----------



## cscscs007

How many of you know it is illegal to bring a gun into Mexico? I see in the news not too long ago the service man from the US got arrested trying to bring one in. Everyone knows guns are a no no in Mexico but it created a fuss when he was tossed in jail. He created his problem by disregarding the law, not reading the signs at the border, and not asking. But it wasn't his fault.

So, no I am not preaching to the choir, I am speaking because it has happened in the past. It will happen again, of this I am sure. Someone will get arrested for marijuana and expect to get help to get out of the problem they created by using the media, or TV, or whatever else they think will bring attention to their situation. I will be turning the channel.


----------



## TundraGreen

cscscs007 said:


> How many of you know it is illegal to bring a gun into Mexico? I see in the news not too long ago the service man from the US got arrested trying to bring one in. Everyone knows guns are a no no in Mexico but it created a fuss when he was tossed in jail. He created his problem by disregarding the law, not reading the signs at the border, and not asking. But it wasn't his fault.
> 
> So, no I am not preaching to the choir, I am speaking because it has happened in the past. It will happen again, of this I am sure. Someone will get arrested for marijuana and expect to get help to get out of the problem they created by using the media, or TV, or whatever else they think will bring attention to their situation. I will be turning the channel.


By "Preaching to the choir", I did not mean you were wrong, just that many of the people you are warning against using marijuana in Mexico have no interest in using it and are merely having a discussion about whether it should be legal or not.


----------



## cscscs007

Chapo Guzman becoming an entrepreneur? Maybe then they would put him back on the Fortune 500 list.


----------



## FHBOY

cscscs007 said:


> Chapo Guzman becoming an entrepreneur? Maybe then they would put him back on the Fortune 500 list.


He is already on the list - but not acknowledged. I remember a report that says if he could be included he'd be, like #3 or #4. Makes him up there with Slim, aye?


----------



## ehw23

i cannot believe that people arent outraged by the fact that MJ is illegal in the first place! 

i have over a quarter century under my belt and havent tried it to this day but how are we going to put hemp-MJ on a list with all other synthetic drugs out there?

its all about politics...everywhere. with politics comes money, then the power!!
stop the games and regulate it like tobacco and alcohol.


in terms of mexico, it definitely has its small town pueblo people all around that know the tricks of the trade and uses of MJ. there are obvious medicinal properties associated with MJ, internally and externally applied that i have heard old timers talking about. these people are the ones we will only meet in the states probably as immigrants poor enough to try to live the AMERICAN DREAM. ...i love their stories!

i definitely see MJ being looked down on in mexican culture...and i understand why. mexico does not have the type of widespread knowledge on MJ yet, slowly but surely.


----------



## ehw23

FHBOY said:


> He is already on the list - but not acknowledged. I remember a report that says if he could be included he'd be, like #3 or #4. Makes him up there with Slim, aye?


i would not doubt if C.Slim was in on the money with Chapo.

i also believe that Chapo is worth MUCH more than what Forbes estimated!
i think we would all be surprised to see how much the govt in MX is so tied to his (chapos) organization


----------



## Longford

KHOU News in Houston ran a story last evening on this topic, of legalization of marijuana, medical marijuana, etc. which some of you may find of interest:



> A one-pound bundle of Kush known on the streets as a “baby” is worth $8,000. One medical marijuana patient in Las Cruces, who did not want his name used, said there are still plenty of people who can only afford the less expensive Mexican marijuana he referred to as “gas tank pot” because it’s often compressed and smuggled across international border crossings hidden in vehicles.
> 
> Supporters of legalization predict it will reduce the need to rely on marijuana smuggled across the border by criminal organizations. But others doubt drug cartels will give up on their number one cash crop without a fight.


Source: Legalized marijuana increases competition for Mexican drug cartels | kvue.com Austin


----------



## FHBOY

Longford said:


> KHOU News in Houston ran a story last evening on this topic, of legalization of marijuana, medical marijuana, etc. which some of you may find of interest:
> 
> 
> 
> Source: Legalized marijuana increases competition for Mexican drug cartels | kvue.com Austin


Totally agree. It will convert them to importers/exporters under a legitimate guise, like the bootleggers of the 20th century. 

Now, think about this...if marijuana production and shipment to the USA is approved, will it then be probable that these new legitimate cartel will be competing with multinational corporations for the market? If cartels need to legitimize this part of their operation, will they have the resources that the multinationals can call on? It will be interesting to follow. Will cartels/multinationals go public and offer stock and bond issues?


----------



## WillyGee

“Jon took all the precautions he believed necessary and honestly sought to fully abide by all laws and regulations regarding transporting his shotgun across the border, including asking the United States Customs and Border Protection agents for the proper procedures to do so,” the lawmaker wrote in her letter. “The CBP agents informed him that he could take his shotgun into Mexico as long as he registered it with the Mexican authorities.We are extremely concerned over the role Customs and Border Protection has played in this situation.”


----------



## pappabee

WillyGee said:


> “Jon took all the precautions he believed necessary and honestly sought to fully abide by all laws and regulations regarding transporting his shotgun across the border, including asking the United States Customs and Border Protection agents for the proper procedures to do so,” the lawmaker wrote in her letter. “The CBP agents informed him that he could take his shotgun into Mexico as long as he registered it with the Mexican authorities.We are extremely concerned over the role Customs and Border Protection has played in this situation.”


I'm very sorry but I just don't understand your post. First of all we are talking about MJ not guns. Second of all you have a quote here but no backup. And who the h-ll is talking?l


----------



## cscscs007

CBP is not the ones to go to in order to clarify questions of taking guns into Mexico.

The Mexican Constitution specifically says in Article 10 firearms are prohibited from importation into the Republic without proper licensing and documentation. Foreigners may not pass the border with unlicensed firearms; the commission of such act is a felony; punishable by prison term.

The US Consulate in Tijuana has on their website very plainly, "Do not bring firearms or ammunition across the border into Mexico. Don't carry a knife, even a small pocketknife on your person in Mexico."
The Consulate finishes this topic with these words, "Claiming to not know about the law will not get you leniency from a police officer or the judicial system. Leave your firearms, ammunition, and knives at home. Don't bring them into Mexico."

As for Chapo Guzman, I think they (US and Mexico) are aware of his whereabouts. Mexico, I believe, resists US efforts to arrest him due to his economic value to the communities he supports. Without this, Mexico would have to fill the void with government money. 

Marijuana is the cartel's #1 money maker. It has been for many years, and I just do not see the cartels abandoning marijuana for less lucrative drugs. Legal, or not, cartels have a taste of the lucrative cash supply marijuana brings, something I don't see them willing to give up easily.


----------



## TundraGreen

cscscs007 said:


> …Marijuana is the cartel's #1 money maker. It has been for many years, and I just do not see the cartels abandoning marijuana for less lucrative drugs. Legal, or not, cartels have a taste of the lucrative cash supply marijuana brings, something I don't see them willing to give up easily.


I agree they won't willingly give it up. But if it becomes legal in all or most of the the states in the US, the price will drop and they may find it hard to compete. It is an interesting question: What happens if it is legal to grow, sell and buy it north of the border, but it continues to be illegal to grow it south of the border. That might put a lot of pressure on Mexico to legalize it as well.


----------



## sparks

Mucho blah, blah, blah .... waste of breath


----------



## FHBOY

sparks said:


> Mucho blah, blah, blah .... waste of breath


Discussion, even on abstract topics, is not a waste of breath, it is human intercourse. This topic is so non-personal that it could happen around a dinner table, in a cafe or in a living room...and for many of us, being in this new "computer isolated" world, it is nice to have that feeling. To tangent to guns is a bit off topic, and cause for another "waste of breath". Not everything we talk about needs to lead to change, sometimes, to paraphrase Freud "a conversation is just a conversation".


----------



## Heyduke

It seems to me that it doesn't matter if it is legal or not. People are going to smoke it if they want. That is obvious by the number of people who do smoke it.


----------



## FHBOY

*We Are Ahead of the "Times"*

Here's and article from today's NYTimes. Talk about how intelligent we are, we started this discussion before they did!

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/20/o...?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20130520&_r=0


----------



## theladygeorge48

Yes I want to GET AWAY from those finger wagers. I am a grown woman and can reason for myself. Keep your aggression and accusatory tone down please. Thanks


----------



## ehw23

the bottom line. ask yourself if cannabis should be illegal or not (an HERB we are talking about here). 

as much as I HATE joe rogan, i am going to use a quote i heard from him in a documentary called THE UNION... "cheeseburgers kill more people than MJ does, but you dont see us outlawing cheeseburgers do you?"

yes joe rogan, the first time i agree with something you say. 

and YES THIS TOPIC IS A NEVER ENDING TOPIC TO DISCUSS. keep the negative comments away


----------



## miltiano32

ehw23 said:


> the bottom line. ask yourself if cannabis should be illegal or not (an HERB we are talking about here).
> 
> and YES THIS TOPIC IS A NEVER ENDING TOPIC TO DISCUSS. keep the negative comments away


Cannabis has slowly been accepted in different states in the U.S for its medicinal properties, if you are against it then you have been a victim of yellow journalism. 

Does anybody know why it is actually illegal? Its because their are so many uses for cannabis (clothes,rope,paper,etc) it would drive out its competitors.

I'm sure some of you have heard of the movie made during WWII "hemp for victory" where the government was encouraging farmers to grow as much as possible, like the person I quoted watch the documentary "the union" and you might have a different perspective on what cannabis is and actually about. :clap2:


----------



## cscscs007

ehw23 said:


> the bottom line. ask yourself if cannabis should be illegal or not (an HERB we are talking about here).
> 
> 
> and YES THIS TOPIC IS A NEVER ENDING TOPIC TO DISCUSS. keep the negative comments away



I do believe the correct response is that you view marijuana as an herb. I do not.

The hemp grown during WW II also had very little THC in it, AKA ditchweed and it's usefulness as fabric and rope is still in use today. The only reason you don't see sales as popular as in WW II is now synthetic rope and polyester fabric is much cheaper to produce, and low cost is what is going to sell.

Finally, your comment to only keep positive comments about marijuana use here, is unacceptable. To only allow comments that favor "your" opinions is not the purpose of this forum. It is to encourage the input of all information to allow the reader to make a thoughtful, informed decision as to their questions. If you desire this I encourage you to create your own forum elsewhere on the internet and set your own rules accordingly.

If MJ is made legal, who will benefit? I think typical American greed will take over the market, large tobacco will try to dominate the market by lobbying to only allow certain companies to grow, manufacture, and sell MJ. Then price control takes over and who would get taken advantage of? The ones who feel they need to use MJ for whatever reason, by paying prices that will ensure those select companies bring in record profits.

I will only consider making MJ legal (my own personal thought) when Govt. rules allow for the consumer to grow a certain number of plants, and allow manufacture of MJ finished product consistent with a realistic amount deemed for personal use. Selling MJ is unacceptable to me, this shouldn't be a money making scheme. If it is truly intended for personal use for those who feel they need it, make the laws and rules reflect that.


----------



## ehw23

cscscs007 said:


> I do believe the correct response is that you view marijuana as an herb. I do not.
> 
> The hemp grown during WW II also had very little THC in it, AKA ditchweed and it's usefulness as fabric and rope is still in use today. The only reason you don't see sales as popular as in WW II is now synthetic rope and polyester fabric is much cheaper to produce, and low cost is what is going to sell.
> 
> Finally, your comment to only keep positive comments about marijuana use here, is unacceptable. To only allow comments that favor "your" opinions is not the purpose of this forum. It is to encourage the input of all information to allow the reader to make a thoughtful, informed decision as to their questions. If you desire this I encourage you to create your own forum elsewhere on the internet and set your own rules accordingly.
> 
> If MJ is made legal, who will benefit? I think typical American greed will take over the market, large tobacco will try to dominate the market by lobbying to only allow certain companies to grow, manufacture, and sell MJ. Then price control takes over and who would get taken advantage of? The ones who feel they need to use MJ for whatever reason, by paying prices that will ensure those select companies bring in record profits.
> 
> I will only consider making MJ legal (my own personal thought) when Govt. rules allow for the consumer to grow a certain number of plants, and allow manufacture of MJ finished product consistent with a realistic amount deemed for personal use. Selling MJ is unacceptable to me, this shouldn't be a money making scheme. If it is truly intended for personal use for those who feel they need it, make the laws and rules reflect that.



i am sorry that you fail to recognize facts regarding what an herb is. i dont need a history lesson on hemp as i know the levels of THC are lower...thanks anyway.

i also am glad you have an opinion...you are entitled to what you think...no bashing there. you can also disagree with me...thats great. i love good conversation...



at the end of the day...MJ/hemp is a flower...herb...plant. 
like it or not


----------



## RVGRINGO

As a child, before, during and after WWII, I lived on a country road where the weeds along the sides were mowed down seasonally, usually by local farmers. Then, after the war ended, the sparay trucks arrive and spewed herbicides along the roadsides everywhere, killing the weeds. We never gave it a second thought; until recently. Yup, stray hemp.


----------



## cscscs007

Cocaine comes from the coca plant.

Hashish comes from the Indian Hemp plant.

Opium and heroin come from the opium poppy plant.

Strychnine is derived from a plant.

The list goes on. Under the definition of an herb all fall into that category, but that doesn't make it an excuse to legalize the usage of such drugs in an open market.

I hear many people in regards to the legalization of marijuana, but there is no plan in place to get people behind. It seems to me the whole legalization issue is disorganized. There are no medical studies that have been tested and retested to validate the usage of marijuana medically that would be recognized by the medical community as reputable. There is no plan to implement the legalization, or proposed rules/laws created now for review and for people to get behind. You can't go in an demand legalization of something without laying out the proper groundwork in advance. 

This is why I will not change my stance as to legalization. Until the legalization group gets serious about doing something, and get the studies done, do the footwork and create a process that would be realistic and actually work, and then unify together. Only then do I see anything happening and getting serious consideration by lawmakers. If people expect lawmakers to do the footwork and create a plan, you are in serious trouble, they can't even decide on anything else before them as it is now. 

As it is, marijuana is illegal, and I see no change in the near future. So, for the time being I will continue to exclude marijuana from my flower bed. There are many other flowers that in my opinion are much prettier, and I won't get arrested for having them.


----------



## ehw23

I do recall hearing during WWII, there was a lot going on with hemp. The point that MJ made people pacifists did not help the agenda at the time..



"Marijuana only became popular again during WWII when the government again permitted the growth of hemp in order to promote economic production. However, the government found after WWII that communism was becoming a threat, and that some pot smokers were pacifists. This was obviously not what the government needed in order to succeed in its Cold War efforts. So, states Harvey, the government then outlawed marijuana to discourage apathy toward communism."

source: The Legalization of Marijuana: The Real Reasons for Banning Cannabis


----------



## ehw23

cscscs007 said:


> Cocaine comes from the coca plant.
> 
> Hashish comes from the Indian Hemp plant.
> 
> Opium and heroin come from the opium poppy plant.
> 
> Strychnine is derived from a plant.
> 
> The list goes on. Under the definition of an herb all fall into that category, but that doesn't make it an excuse to legalize the usage of such drugs in an open market.
> 
> I hear many people in regards to the legalization of marijuana, but there is no plan in place to get people behind. It seems to me the whole legalization issue is disorganized. There are no medical studies that have been tested and retested to validate the usage of marijuana medically that would be recognized by the medical community as reputable. There is no plan to implement the legalization, or proposed rules/laws created now for review and for people to get behind. You can't go in an demand legalization of something without laying out the proper groundwork in advance.
> 
> This is why I will not change my stance as to legalization. Until the legalization group gets serious about doing something, and get the studies done, do the footwork and create a process that would be realistic and actually work, and then unify together. Only then do I see anything happening and getting serious consideration by lawmakers. If people expect lawmakers to do the footwork and create a plan, you are in serious trouble, they can't even decide on anything else before them as it is now.
> 
> As it is, marijuana is illegal, and I see no change in the near future. So, for the time being I will continue to exclude marijuana from my flower bed. There are many other flowers that in my opinion are much prettier, and I won't get arrested for having them.


Cocaine involves A LOT more than just the coca plant. Please watch a video or read on how cocaine is produced in S.America (where the bulk comes from) and see how it is REALLY made...then you will understand. Cocaine has a bunch of nasty crap mixed into it before it is made into the final product...not to mention people mixing baking soda in the end to yield more product. 

Hashish does not just come from the Indian Hemp plant. 

Heroin is much more involved than just the poppy plant. Much like cocaine, there is more involved.

MJ/hemp is just MJ/hemp. Nothing added and straight from Gods green Earth...why is this so obvious?


just look at the opium trade in the middle east....you have addicts out the roof and more criminal organizations trafficking because of some illegal plant that grows like wildfire over there! it seems that the problem is a lot bigger than most recognize...but its illegal? cmon...its all political..period.


...Of course the whole legalization thing is unorganized! The very LITTLE research that the government has allowed on MJ was suffocating monkeys with tons of smoke of MJ and watching them die..then telling the public that it causes us to lose brain cells. Of course there is no organization behind MJ in the USA...its ILLEGAL and those who attempt to get the facts out will be shut down. Now things are changing and people are learning.


----------



## cscscs007

It is believed that hashish originated in Western Asia (also called the Middle East or Near East) and south Asia (the Indian subcontinent) where the cannabis plant was widely available.
Northern India has a long social tradition in the production of hashish, known locally as Charas, which is believed to be the same plant resin as was burned in the ceremonial "booz rooz" of ancient Persia.[1] Cannabis indica grows wild almost everywhere on the Indian sub-continent, and special strains have been particularly cultivated for production of "ganja" and "hashish" particularly in West Bengal, Rajasthan and the Himalayas.[citation needed]
The earliest hashish was created by gently rubbing palms and fingers on cannabis buds for hours to accumulate resin, which would then be scraped off the hand.


----------



## mickisue1

ehw23 said:


> I do recall hearing during WWII, there was a lot going on with hemp. The point that MJ made people pacifists did not help the agenda at the time..
> 
> 
> 
> "Marijuana only became popular again during WWII when the government again permitted the growth of hemp in order to promote economic production. However, the government found after WWII that communism was becoming a threat, and that some pot smokers were pacifists. This was obviously not what the government needed in order to succeed in its Cold War efforts. So, states Harvey, the government then outlawed marijuana to discourage apathy toward communism."
> 
> source: The Legalization of Marijuana: The Real Reasons for Banning Cannabis


You sourced your comments. Too bad that the source article was pulled out of the author's nether regions. There may be some truth to it, but who could tell? There is not a whit of information, no footnotes, no endnotes, nothing. 

Just some undergrad espousing their opinion with no basis but their own fertile imagination, and you fell for it. Did you link to the corrections? There are at least three major errors in that short little article, that the student newspaper felt obligated to correct.

It's wise, if looking for information to support one's beliefs, to use better sources than an editorial in a small college newspaper.


----------



## ehw23

mickisue1 said:


> You sourced your comments. Too bad that the source article was pulled out of the author's nether regions. There may be some truth to it, but who could tell? There is not a whit of information, no footnotes, no endnotes, nothing.
> 
> Just some undergrad espousing their opinion with no basis but their own fertile imagination, and you fell for it. Did you link to the corrections? There are at least three major errors in that short little article, that the student newspaper felt obligated to correct.
> 
> It's wise, if looking for information to support one's beliefs, to use better sources than an editorial in a small college newspaper.



Youre prob right about errors and i honestly could care less. You are obviously trying to make a point/your opinion... I googled something simple so you would understand what i amtrying to say. Pardon the source..but im sure u will find thousands more out there. If you argue their points they make then we cannot be on the Same page..ever. You keep hating while the facts lay right in front of u. I know,its hard to swallow the pride after so many years...its a generation thing maybe? 

I will go ahead and rest my case here. I sense the animosity whenever facts are presented. 

Make sure you cross your Ts and dot them Is


PS: whats your source?


----------



## Isla Verde

ehw23 said:


> Youre prob right about errors and i honestly could care less. You are obviously trying to make a point/your opinion... I googled something simple so you would understand what i amtrying to say. Pardon the source..but im sure u will find thousands more out there. If you argue their points they make then we cannot be on the Same page..ever. You keep hating while the facts lay right in front of u. I know,its hard to swallow the pride after so many years...its a generation thing maybe?
> 
> I will go ahead and rest my case here. I sense the animosity whenever facts are presented.
> 
> Make sure you cross your Ts and dot them Is
> 
> 
> PS: whats your source?


You know, just because some information can be found on the internet, doesn't mean it's valid information. Or is the request for valid information just a generational thing?


----------



## mickisue1

Here is the irony: I'm on your side. I think that keeping this particular recreational drug illegal is without merit from a potential physical harm POV, both to the user and the user's associates. 

The economic and social harms of keeping a drug that's in wide use illegal was already demonstrated under Prohibition; to repeat that error with marijuana is foolish.

But wild eyed accusations are not helpful, they are harmful. Unless you have real data to prove, for example, that McCarthyism was THE major reason, or even A reason that marijuana remained illegal after WWII, it's wise not to advance that particular theory.

It just makes supporters of decriminalization look like crazy paranoid potheads. I don't even use it. I just recognize stupid laws when I see them.


----------



## ehw23

haha some will learn understand. . .
some are on here just for approval. im here for the facts. 

PROHIBITION DOES NOTHING BUT CREATE CRIMINAL ORGANIZATIONS.


----------



## ehw23

Isla Verde said:


> You know, just because some information can be found on the internet, doesn't mean it's valid information. Or is the request for valid information just a generational thing?


Wheres your source? Please post a rebuttal source if you have anything in disagreement or please dont say anything at all. This subject is about legalization of cannabis and not punctuation and sourcing.

THANKS!!! :clap2::clap2::clap2::clap2:


----------



## pappabee

ehw23 said:


> Youre prob right about errors and i honestly could care less. You are obviously trying to make a point/your opinion... I googled something simple so you would understand what i amtrying to say. Pardon the source..but im sure u will find thousands more out there._*THEN WHY DIDN'T YOU USE THEM?*_If you argue their points they make then we cannot be on the Same page..ever. You keep hating*I SAW NOTHING POSTED ABOUT HATE BUT YOUR WORDS SURE DO BRING OUT A HATEFUL ATTITUDE* while the facts lay right in front of u*BUT, SINCE YOUR SOURCE IS FAULTY THEN YOUR FACTS ARE ALSO*. I know,its hard to swallow the pride after so many years...its a generation thing maybe?
> 
> I will go ahead and rest my case here. I sense the animosity whenever facts*WHAT FACTS-THE ONES IN THE COLLEGE NEWSPAPER THAT WERE COVERED WITH A CORRECTION OF INFORMATION?* are presented.
> 
> Make sure you cross your Ts and dot them Is *I WOULD STRONGLY SUGGEST THAT YOU DO A BETTER JOB OF VERIFYING YOUR SOURCES, IT WILL INCREASE THE BELIEVABILITY OF YOUR POSTS *
> 
> 
> 
> PS: whats your source?



This post is a joke. Your statement “I could care less” regarding errors in your link publication shows a gross lack of concern with the truth. You want someone to give you facts yet you accept part facts and partial truths. 

What would you have said if on October 30, 1938 you had been listing to the radio during Orson Wells rendition of “The War of the Worlds”? Or how about reading the November 3, 1948 first edition of the Chicago Tribune about Dewey Defeating Truman?

Quoting something that you know is not completely correct only turns ALL of your posts into question


----------



## FHBOY

Folks, can we all just turn it down a notch to go back to the discussion? A source was cited, it was rebutted, doesn't mean the one who posted should be attacked, OK? At worst it was just a lack of backgrounding that may not have been available, but back off!

The people "not of a certain age" (I am generalizing here) have had this marvelous tool to use for information. Some take what they read for gospel and finding one source believe it is the "only" response, they don't (again generalizing) do the deep research like people of a certain age had to do in an archaic institution: the library. [Look they may not have the time, also] I don't fault that, there is now too much information out there to be as thorough as I seem to remember myself being (?) as a college journalist. 24/7 news, short "cuts" in film and on TV - have you ever heard of some people even reading the screen for instructions? I've watched it with my kids, they absorb so fast, and move so quickly to the next thing, a long drawn out investigation is maybe five minutes (remember I am generalizing here.)

But :focus:

The issue is simple: will legalization of marijuana hurt the society? And I fall back on my initial alcohol argument. And the poster was right: We need to have study about the effects of marijuana manufacture, control and distribution, but that seems like a Rashomon situation: you need to do it, but you can't because it is illegal, but to make it legal (maybe) you need to do it anyway.


----------



## pappabee

My comment was not about the moral or the political status of legalization of MJ but the pure economic benefits. Don’t you think that the US could use part of the $20+ Billions and the 100’s man hours that could be saved? 

If there was no longer a problem with importing MJ then the cartels could shift over to the pirate CD’s and DVR’s like China has done. FYI, pirated CD’s, DVD’s and software is the newest and largest illegal export from China. 

I agree that we need to get back to the basic posts and forget the slightly off topic threads. 
If we have an economics guru out there, what happens to business when one source of income dries up?


----------



## ehw23

FHBOY said:


> Folks, can we all just turn it down a notch to go back to the discussion? A source was cited, it was rebutted, doesn't mean the one who posted should be attacked, OK? At worst it was just a lack of backgrounding that may not have been available, but back off!
> 
> The people "not of a certain age" (I am generalizing here) have had this marvelous tool to use for information. Some take what they read for gospel and finding one source believe it is the "only" response, they don't (again generalizing) do the deep research like people of a certain age had to do in an archaic institution: the library. [Look they may not have the time, also] I don't fault that, there is now too much information out there to be as thorough as I seem to remember myself being (?) as a college journalist. 24/7 news, short "cuts" in film and on TV - have you ever heard of some people even reading the screen for instructions? I've watched it with my kids, they absorb so fast, and move so quickly to the next thing, a long drawn out investigation is maybe five minutes (remember I am generalizing here.)
> 
> 
> But :focus:
> 
> The issue is simple: will legalization of marijuana hurt the society? And I fall back on my initial alcohol argument. And the poster was right: We need to have study about the effects of marijuana manufacture, control and distribution, but that seems like a Rashomon situation: you need to do it, but you can't because it is illegal, but to make it legal (maybe) you need to do it anyway.


 Such a colorful topic with colorful people. Love it.

I think we are definitely closer to mj reform than we were before...and that will bring more research and facts to surface. Facrts are already out there,you just have to be educated or willing to research and verify. I still feel people are biased because of the lack of will they have to find out the truth.

MJ is def méxicos number one cash "crop" and legalization would put a hit on criminal organizations in Méx and usa. 

Human trafficking and other drugs would fill the void more than pirated material. Dont forget China exports the raw material required in making black tar heroin and meth....these drugs are here to stay. Remember the chinese national who had a mansion in Méx. City and found over 200million cash i believe.... 


PS: why does the govt prohibit mj but its ok for them to emergency crash land in Yucatán with tons of .... 

Its not constitutional..period.


----------



## cscscs007

Edgardo Buscaglia has done extensive research on cartels and how legalizing marijuana will have an impact on them, with a primary focus on economics. He has plenty of credentials on his resume. 

Did Prohibition negatively affect the mafia? I don't think so. Did the repeal of Prohibition hurt the mafia? Not in my opinion. What did affect the mafia? When the government passed the RICO Act. The government started arresting top bosses and seizing assets which affected mafia control. This diminished the power and control of the mafia, but it is still in existence today. 

To tell others to back off because they have pointed out a legitimate lack of foundation is concerning. Rather, the correct procedure would have been to take the time and provide credible information to strengthen the position you are in agreement with. Other effectively stated this in their postings.

I am willing to listen to the legalization of marijuana, but credible evidence must be shown if it is available. Reliance on conjecture will not get far in this day and age. If it won't pass muster with others on this site, do you think a person in a position of power will give much thought to it. Doubtful. 

Here are some of the materials I read in reference to the economics and cartel control in Mexico, and in reference to Prohibition. 

Mafia in the United States — History.com Articles, Video, Pictures and Facts

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/19/opinion/19longmire.html

Mexico and the War on Drugs - The European

https://sites.google.com/site/theme...ge/invitados-guest-speakers/edgardo-buscaglia


----------



## FHBOY

_"To tell others to back off because they have pointed out a legitimate lack of foundation is concerning. Rather, the correct procedure would have been to take the time and provide credible information to strengthen the position you are in agreement with. Other effectively stated this in their postings"_.

I do not think you understood - there should be no backing off the argument what was referred to was the "attacks" on the person presenting it. Just a restoration of civility that has generally marked this thread.

This discussion cannot be backed off, as it will become a major issue within the next few years as the issue of states vs. federal laws on marijuana forces it to the forefront.

As pointed out, the repeal of Prohibition did not single handedly lead to a reduction in organized crime, but it took one "profit center" away to a great extent, while providing, or moving that profit center to the government(s) and the ensuing savings of not spending on unenforceable enforcement. 

The illegal institution still had many other profit centers and more ways to fund itself. Legalizing marijuana will not extinguish the cartels or the mob influence overall, but will mean, like a slimey ooze, the profits from that part of the enterprise will dry up. Will the ooze still be here? Yes, but it will have to find itself new channels.

To believe that the legalization of marijuana in the USA is an effective way to destroy the cartels and support structure is ludicrous. What the legalization is only one small part to try and "starve the beast", and probably an ineffective one at that.

What it does do, however, has been pointed out repeatedly in this discussion. There is no easy answers here which is what makes this discussion so interesting.


----------



## FHBOY

*A Moral Question*

Is it just me or has this entire discussion never brought up the "morality" of marijuana? I may be imagining it but it seems, for or against legalization, the question of it being basically morally right or wrong, the substance itself, has not been broached. Does this mean that we all tacitly agree that marijuana, in itself, is not a immoral? And can a plant be immoral, (am I using the correct word?) like a behavior? 

 Just thinkin'


----------



## TundraGreen

FHBOY said:


> Is it just me or has this entire discussion never brought up the "morality" of marijuana? I may be imagining it but it seems, for or against legalization, the question of it being basically morally right or wrong, the substance itself, has not been broached. Does this mean that we all tacitly agree that marijuana, in itself, is not a immoral? And can a plant be immoral, (am I using the correct word?) like a behavior?
> 
> Just thinkin'


In my opinion, I can't imagine what morality would have to do with this discussion. I can see that murder or slavery or some human activities might have a moral element to the discussion. Again in my opinion, there is a moral element to eating animals, since they are sentient beings, and one can debate whether or not it is moral to eat them. But eating or smoking plants? I don't see it. However, there are frutarians who maintain that killing any living thing is immoral. They might claim there is an immoral aspect to smoking marijuana. However, I suspect your comment was not directed at a concern about the rights of the plant but more about the use of a drug. That I don't get at all.


----------



## pappabee

I don’t understand how a plant or a weed can, in its self, be considered immoral. Just like a gun or a knife cannot be considered immoral. It’s how they are used that creates the moral issue. 

Is using MJ any more or less moral that using tobacco or drinking booze? IMHO the morality rests with what happens to the person using it. Many of us know a person who can drink a lot and still appear sober. We also know a person who almost looks at a drink and can’t walk a straight line. 

Also, lit has been proven that there is actually no physical addition to MJ. There is the addition to the feeling but the same goes for booze. And, there have been some tests that claim that booze actually creates a physical addition. So why is one OK and the other not?

As I have said before, I really don’t want to discuss the morality issue because it will only digress into a shouting match. My concern is the real issue of dollars and man hours. I’ll let the Churches and the Rhodins (the thinkers) work that other part out.


----------



## cscscs007

The person was not "attacked" but rather his noncredible evidence was pointed out, and was advised to rely on valid material, as it should be. The response?

"Youre prob right about errors and i honestly could care less."

It speaks for itself, loud and clear. I understand this perfectly. 



Are you willing to trade the legalization of marijuana, and as you say, for the cartels increasing their activity in kidnappings? Who do you think would be targeted?

Are you willing to trade the legalization of marijuana for the increase in extortions of legitimate businesses? We all know consumers pay added cost for this or the small businesses would go under.

Others have posted legalizing marijuana would drive cartels to other drugs instead. Would you be willing to trade the legalization of marijuana for the increase in violence that would most likely result in the fight for control of the shrinking drug trafficking market? 

For a topic as subjective as morality, people sure have strong beliefs about what's right and wrong. Yet even though morals can vary from person to person and culture to culture, many are practically universal, as they result from basic human emotions. We may think of moralizing as an intellectual exercise, but more frequently it's an attempt to make sense of our gut instincts - from Psychology Today.

Do your "gut instincts" tell you a weed/herb/plant is worth the risk associated with legalizing it? 

To risk my daughter, son, or wife to kidnapping for a weed for people to smoke is crazy. And I am using the pro legalizing logic to look to the future. Thanks, but no thanks. I won't even risk it.


----------



## FHBOY

cscscs007 said:


> To risk my daughter, son, or wife to kidnapping for a weed for people to smoke is crazy. And I am using the pro legalizing logic to look to the future. Thanks, but no thanks. I won't even risk it.


This is a cogent argument but I believe that even just taking marijuana out of the illegal activities of cartels, mobs does not increase the risk you speak of, but decreases it. 

What incentive, based on marijuana being able to generate a legit profit for them, does kidnapping have? Now, of course, there is still meth, H and such, but specifically marijuana, we've taken away that incentive...there is no need to terrorize to "win". 

It is conceivable, however not probable, that the cartels now illegally supplying marijuana could form a OPEC-like consortium, allowing them to save time/money/manpower form the production/distribution of it to allow them (horrors!) to re-channel those resources to other disgusting and despicable activities. It is an "ad absurdium" Swiftian argument to make, of course.

[Got some things to get to, more later.]


----------



## ehw23

cscscs007 said:


> The person was not "attacked" but rather his noncredible evidence was pointed out, and was advised to rely on valid material, as it should be. The response?
> 
> "Youre prob right about errors and i honestly could care less."
> 
> It speaks for itself, loud and clear. I understand this perfectly.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you willing to trade the legalization of marijuana, and as you say, for the cartels increasing their activity in kidnappings? Who do you think would be targeted?
> 
> Are you willing to trade the legalization of marijuana for the increase in extortions of legitimate businesses? We all know consumers pay added cost for this or the small businesses would go under.
> 
> Others have posted legalizing marijuana would drive cartels to other drugs instead. Would you be willing to trade the legalization of marijuana for the increase in violence that would most likely result in the fight for control of the shrinking drug trafficking market?
> 
> For a topic as subjective as morality, people sure have strong beliefs about what's right and wrong. Yet even though morals can vary from person to person and culture to culture, many are practically universal, as they result from basic human emotions. We may think of moralizing as an intellectual exercise, but more frequently it's an attempt to make sense of our gut instincts - from Psychology Today.
> 
> Do your "gut instincts" tell you a weed/herb/plant is worth the risk associated with legalizing it?
> 
> To risk my daughter, son, or wife to kidnapping for a weed for people to smoke is crazy. And I am using the pro legalizing logic to look to the future. Thanks, but no thanks. I won't even risk it.



You are correct. I still could care less what your opinion is on my source (facts are facts whether they are on CNN, FOX, some college newspapers, editiorial, etc). I personally think FACTS WILL BE FACTS. If you read my source, you will see that their is truth in what I said...rather than trying to dig for dirt. IT WAS VALID MATERIAL. There is the truth...and there is everything else. I dont know why we are still talking about this (must be heartfelt) but I want to assure you there is nothing to worry about.

Also, you are speculating(in your favor) about what the ´consequences´of legalizing MJ... How do you know what cartels will do once it is legalized? How are you so sure? Where are your sources that I can critique? Or is it common sense? blah blah blah. 

Non credible evidence? Let me just say right now, your opinion and those who agree with you...is just another opinion to me. Just as I can think you are wrong with your NYtimes source or your government source. 

So if facts are facts....no matter the source...then things wont change just because the source has some grammatical errors or wahtnot. 

WHAT I AM MOST CONCERNED WITH IS...THE BOTTOM LINE.


----------



## mickisue1

ehw23 said:


> You are correct. I still could care less what your opinion is on my source (facts are facts whether they are on CNN, FOX, some college newspapers, editiorial, etc). I personally think FACTS WILL BE FACTS. If you read my source, you will see that their is truth in what I said...rather than trying to dig for dirt. IT WAS VALID MATERIAL. There is the truth...and there is everything else. I dont know why we are still talking about this (must be heartfelt) but I want to assure you there is nothing to worry about.
> 
> Also, you are speculating(in your favor) about what the ´consequences´of legalizing MJ... How do you know what cartels will do once it is legalized? How are you so sure? Where are your sources that I can critique? Or is it common sense? blah blah blah.
> 
> Non credible evidence? Let me just say right now, your opinion and those who agree with you...is just another opinion to me. Just as I can think you are wrong with your NYtimes source or your government source.
> 
> So if facts are facts....no matter the source...then things wont change just because the source has some grammatical errors or wahtnot.
> 
> WHAT I AM MOST CONCERNED WITH IS...THE BOTTOM LINE.


Facts that are uncorroborated are opinions. There is nothing wrong with expressing one's opinion. But to conflate the two is folly at best, dishonest at worst.


----------



## ehw23

mickisue1 said:


> There is nothing wrong with expressing one's opinion.


Again, another opinion. Thanks for reiterating. I think we can move past this now?... or cant we? I dont see a middle ground any time soon. 


The sky is blue.
Source=4 year old.

Does that make it right or wrong coming from a source such as a toddler-kid? 
It is still true regardless.


----------



## Isla Verde

I think we've had enough squabbling about this point. Let's get back to discussing the merits (or lack thereof) of legalizing the use of marijuana, ok?


----------



## cscscs007

Corrections for September 30th Issue


Above is the correction made to the article that was posted. I suppose the esteemed Dr. who wrote the book referenced to is irrelevant also, because it does not fit into your opinion. You can't have it both ways, rely on a source of information as credible, but dispute the correction. What's it going to be? 

I do not know what the cartels will do if marijuana would be legalized, but neither does anyone else. I can look to the cartel's past activities to formulate "my opinion" as to what they would most likely do. I can look to what the mobs did after the prohibition to formulate "my opinion." I can also look to evidence, published material, studies, in order to make an educated decision.

You are entitled to refuse to accept material published that is not in your interests. You are entitled to refuse to accept scholars and doctors whose research is contrary to your opinion. You are entitled to refuse to accept the US Supreme Court opinions relating to this. 


The bottom line is this:

Marijuana is illegal in the US, and in Mexico. You want it legal, it's on you to prove why it should be, and how to do it. It is on you to prove that legalizing marijuana won't create additional criminal activity such as kidnapping and extortion.

By making marijuana illegal, well, it is already known what the effects are. 

That's the bottom line.


----------



## AlanMexicali

ehw23 said:


> Again, another opinion. Thanks for reiterating. I think we can move past this now?... or cant we? I dont see a middle ground any time soon.
> 
> 
> The sky is blue.
> Source=4 year old.
> 
> Does that make it right or wrong coming from a source such as a toddler-kid?
> It is still true regardless.


"There are no facts, only interpretations.


from Nietzsche's Nachlass, A. Danto translation.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Enemies of truth.-- Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies.


from Nietzsche's Human, all too Human, s.483, R.J. Hollingdale transl.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Linguistic danger to spiritual freedom.-- Every word is a prejudice.


from Nietzsche's The Wanderer and his Shadow,s. 55, R.J. Hollingdale transl.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Man and things.-- Why does man not see things? He is himself standing in the way: he conceals things.


from Nietzsche's Daybreak, s. 483, R.J. Hollingdale transl

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mystical explanations.-- Mystical explanations are considered deep. The truth is that they are not even superficial.


from Nietzsche's The Gay Science, s.126, Walter Kaufmann transl.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Metaphysical world.-- It is true, there could be a metaphysical world; the absolute possibility of it is hardly to be disputed. We behold all things through the human head and cannot cut off this head; while the question nonetheless remains what of the world would still be there if one had cut it off.


from Nietzsche's Human, All Too Human, s.9, R.J. Hollingdale transl.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just beyond experience!-- Even great spirits have only their five fingers breadth of experience - just beyond it their thinking ceases and their endless empty space and stupidity begins.


from Nietzsche's Daybreak, s. 564, R.J. Hollingdale translation" :deadhorse:


----------



## AlanMexicali

*TRUTH IS: subjective*

Also:

"What then is truth? A mobile army of metaphors, metonyms, and anthropomorphisms -- in short, a sum of human relations, which have been enhanced, transposed, and embellished poetically and rhetorically, and which after long use seem firm, canonical, and obligatory to a people: truths are illusions about which one has forgotten that is what they are; metaphors which are worn out and without sensuous power; coins which have lost their pictures and now matter only as metal, no longer as coins.
We still do not know where the urge for truth comes from; for as yet we have heard only of the obligation imposed by society that it should exist: to be truthful means using the customary metaphors - in moral terms, the obligation to lie according to fixed convention, to lie herd-like in a style obligatory for all...


'On truth and lie in an extra-moral sense,' The Viking Portable Nietzsche, p.46-7, Walter Kaufmann translation." :tape:


----------



## GARYJ65

Mariguana should be "legalized" in order to take control of it. The country should manage its production and marketing and charge taxes. Just as we do with tobacco and alcohol. Tobacco is harmful for our health, but if there is people who don't care if they die in terrible ways, let them have it!
Mariguana is the same thing: harmful, just acts stronger, but there is people that like being numb, let them have their way! Just make them pay taxes for it.
Alcohol is a bit different, because in some cases, wine for instance, it's even good for our health.

One couple of things we should also do:

Make those taxes pay for the damages they provoke; enphysema, cancer, etc. So that we, the rest of tax payers that don't smoke, don't have to pay for that.

Make harsher laws for people that provoke accidents, drive,, kiddnap or smuggle or do any idiotic thing while under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Because enough is enough, and we' ve been taken too much from these people already.


----------



## GARYJ65

GARYJ65 said:


> Mariguana should be "legalized" in order to take control of it. The country should manage its production and marketing and charge taxes. Just as we do with tobacco and alcohol. Tobacco is harmful for our health, but if there is people who don't care if they die in terrible ways, let them have it!
> Mariguana is the same thing: harmful, just acts stronger, but there is people that like being numb, let them have their way! Just make them pay taxes for it.
> Alcohol is a bit different, because in some cases, wine for instance, it's even good for our health.
> 
> One couple of things we should also do:
> 
> Make those taxes pay for the damages they provoke; enphysema, cancer, etc. So that we, the rest of tax payers that don't smoke, don't have to pay for that.
> 
> Make harsher laws for people that provoke accidents, drive,, kiddnap or smuggle or do any idiotic thing while under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Because enough is enough, and we' ve been taken too much from these people already.


Darn corrector: should say Marihuana


----------



## conorkilleen

haha! I'm back!

This thread personifies every reason why MJ will not be legal in my lifetime. Too many hippies with too little facts arguing with too many conservatives with too many opinions.


----------



## Isla Verde

conorkilleen said:


> haha! I'm back!
> 
> This thread personifies every reason why MJ will not be legal in my lifetime. Too many hippies with too little facts arguing with too many conservatives with too many opinions.


Nice to have you back! How's everything going for you and your family in Mexico City?


----------



## conorkilleen

Its going great Isla! I need to invite you over to my house to meet my wife and kids, also for some great food!. I have another baby on the way, and yes, its a BOY!. I've been out numbered 4 to 1 the last years.

I took a break from the ExPat forum for a while. Needed a breather from all the bickering


----------



## Isla Verde

conorkilleen said:


> Its going great Isla! I need to invite you over to my house to meet my wife and kids, also for some great food!. I have another baby on the way, and yes, its a BOY!. I've been out numbered 4 to 1 the last years.
> 
> I took a break from the ExPat forum for a while. Needed a breather from all the bickering


Looking forward to it.

Now that I'm a moderator, I'm doing my best to help TG keep the bickering to a minimum.


----------



## conorkilleen

I just realized! YOU ARE A MOD! jajajja. cool.

I'll PM you and we can get together for a lunch/dinner at my house or we can meet for coffee downtown.

Sorry, I dont have any weed to smoke.


----------



## Isla Verde

conorkilleen said:


> I just realized! YOU ARE A MOD! jajajja. cool.
> 
> I'll PM you and we can get together for a lunch/dinner at my house or we can meet for coffee downtown.
> 
> Sorry, I dont have any weed to smoke.


I'd love to try some of your wife's home cooking.

Don't worry about not being able to offer me any of that stuff. Though I came of age in the late 60s, I was never into smoking anything, not even tobacco.


----------



## ehw23

Isla Verde said:


> Looking forward to it.
> 
> Now that I'm a moderator, I'm doing my best to help TG keep the bickering to a minimum.


We, here on the forum, are very proud and happy that we have someone to help TG with the Mexico Expat Forum. 


Anyway, why does anyone even want to legalize that dumb plant anyway?
Seems to me that facts will never win any kind of argument (its evident everywhere). Maybe we are all different and its okay to have an opinion backed with a source of our choosing? Just maybe... 

Doing great Isla I am proud of you!!!


----------



## mickisue1

GARYJ65 said:


> Darn corrector: should say Marihuana


Actually, the US spelling is marijuana. One of its countless nicknames is Mary Jane.


----------



## conorkilleen

mickisue1 said:


> One of its countless nicknames is Mary Jane.



RIP Rick James


----------



## PanamaJack

mickisue1 said:


> Actually, the US spelling is marijuana. One of its countless nicknames is Mary Jane.


My understanding is both the j and h are acceptable in English

ma·ri·jua·na
[mar-uh-wah-nuh] Show IPA 

noun 
1. 
hemp ( def 1 ) . 
2. 
the dried leaves and female flowers of the hemp plant, used in cigarette form as a narcotic or hallucinogen. 
*Also, ma·ri·hua·na. *--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Origin: 
1890–95, Americanism; < Mexican Spanish marihuana, mariguana; traditional association with the personal name María Juana is probably a folk etymology


----------



## FHBOY

conorkilleen said:


> haha! I'm back!


Yeah, I sort of noticed you were gone for a while. I admire your discipline. I tried while I resettled here, but couldn't do it.

So, good luck with the new baby. KIT!


----------



## conorkilleen

It was more than just the bickering of course. It was also myself freewheeling it as I adjusted to Mexico City life. Being in my early thirties, one would think that it would be a breeze. Add in a wife and 3 children, you got yourselve a real adventure on your hands!.

I have been exploring Mexico City and all that it has to offer. From the upscale lunch meetings at Nobu with clients to the streetside Tacos de Canasta and Tio Juans Tortas food carts in Neza with my workers, I feel as if I have seen and done almost everything, however in reality, I have only experienced 1% of Mexico City. There is so much to do here! Cuamanco Lanchas! Valle de Bravo only 2 hrs away. Los Mercados, parks and Museums. Its incredible. I think this country boy from Ohio has found his new home.


----------



## Isla Verde

conorkilleen said:


> I think this country boy from Ohio has found his new home.


Congratulations and join the club!


----------



## mickisue1

Happy that things are going so well for you, Conor. And you get to have dinner with the illustrious Ms. Verde, as well!


----------



## Isla Verde

mickisue1 said:


> Happy that things are going so well for you, Conor. And you get to have dinner with the illustrious Ms. Verde, as well!


And someday I hope to have dinner with you too, mickisue!


----------



## mickisue1

Isla Verde said:


> And someday I hope to have dinner with you too, mickisue!


A lovely thought, indeed.


----------



## conorkilleen

mickisue1 said:


> Happy that things are going so well for you, Conor. And you get to have dinner with the illustrious Ms. Verde, as well!


Thanks! I have already had the pleasure of sharing a dinner and a bottle of wine with Isla on one occasion. She is an amazing conversationalist, especially after a few glasses of wine! I look forward to meeting more of my Expat Brothers and Sisters as the years continue. Although I tend to shy away from interaction with other foreigners, its good for the soul every once in a while. I'm kinda a hermit when the mood strikes me.

Conor


----------



## AlanMexicali

conorkilleen said:


> Thanks! I have already had the pleasure of sharing a dinner and a bottle of wine with Isla on one occasion. She is an amazing conversationalist, especially after a few glasses of wine! I look forward to meeting more of my Expat Brothers and Sisters as the years continue. Although I tend to shy away from interaction with other foreigners, its good for the soul every once in a while. I'm kinda a hermit when the mood strikes me.
> 
> Conor


My wife and I had the pleasure of meeting an Expat from this forum not long ago. We had a lunch in a cozy, artistically designed and decorated antique hotel and he showed us around his pueblo. Great day for us. Alan


----------



## ehw23

All this talk about wine, food, and fun ... what about the legalization of cannabis? I mean, wine, food, fun, and cannabis sounds lovely and harmless as well..right?

Demand in the states will never let prohibition work. Mexico, Canada, and the US are heavily supplying US citizens with the herb. All I know is that prohibition is not working and has never worked. And yes I do not have the solution being that there are many out there ...not just one. If some levelheaded God-fearing people decided to get together and make some legitimate proposals regarding its legalization, then only then may we understand the stupidity of prohibition. 

hey would ya pass me a beer?


----------



## ehw23

..im dying for that beer. 

can we do an anyomous vote on who supports and who doesnt support legalization (regulated of course)?

Moderators..there isnt a way to do a poll here is there? Maybe the YAY or NAY method would work but only a few would reply... tsk

i guess i am curious to see the numbers on this one.


----------



## Isla Verde

ehw23 said:


> ..im dying for that beer.
> 
> can we do an anyomous vote on who supports and who doesnt support legalization (regulated of course)?
> 
> Moderators..there isnt a way to do a poll here is there? Maybe the YAY or NAY method would work but only a few would reply... tsk
> 
> i guess i am curious to see the numbers on this one.


There is a way to post a poll here. Click on Post a New Thread at the top of the Mexico Forum main page. Then scroll down to Additional Options, where you will find Post a Poll. Click on this option when you Submit a New Thread, and you'll be ready to go.


----------



## FHBOY

*A Fox in the Grass*

Former Mexican president pushes for pot legalization - CNN.com

No comment


----------



## GARYJ65

FHBOY said:


> Former Mexican president pushes for pot legalization - CNN.com
> 
> No comment


Vicente Fox is an idiot, always has been


----------



## FHBOY

GARYJ65 said:


> Vicente Fox is an idiot, always has been


I claim ignorance about Fox, I should read up on him. Like many Anglos, during his time in office, Mexico was just a place south of the border, with tequila and resort beaches. It is time to learn.

Where can I find good , solid info about Fox and his policies?


----------



## TundraGreen

GARYJ65 said:


> Vicente Fox is an idiot, always has been


Sounds like a personal opinion, not universally shared, if ever there was one.

Added note: I am not necessarily a fan of Señor Vicente Fox. I just thinking dismissing anyone as an "idiot" is too simplified even for true idiots by either dictionary definition.

1. Informal. an utterly foolish or senseless person.
2. Psychology . (no longer in technical use; considered offensive) a person of the lowest order in a former and discarded classification of mental retardation, having a mental age of less than three years old and an intelligence quotient under 25.


----------



## ehw23

FHBOY said:


> I claim ignorance about Fox, I should read up on him. Like many Anglos, during his time in office, Mexico was just a place south of the border, with tequila and resort beaches. It is time to learn.
> 
> Where can I find good , solid info about Fox and his policies?


And the wheel goes round and round..and round.

What I would personally tell you is to just go 'floating' around online and choose sources from different angles and views. You will see overlap and phoniness and go from there so being able to tell how things really were wont be as tough.

Of course he is releasing his view on legalization for a purpose... thats just to get people all wound up!


----------



## GARYJ65

TundraGreen said:


> Sounds like a personal opinion, not universally shared, if ever there was one.
> 
> Added note: I am not necessarily a fan of Señor Vicente Fox. I just thinking dismissing anyone as an "idiot" is too simplified even for true idiots by either dictionary definition.
> 
> 1. Informal. an utterly foolish or senseless person.
> 2. Psychology . (no longer in technical use; considered offensive) a person of the lowest order in a former and discarded classification of mental retardation, having a mental age of less than three years old and an intelligence quotient under 25.


He is both of those, and then some

It's a long story, trying to summarize; it was expected from his party, PAN, to do so many more changes,he was way to informal, not punctual, not intelligent at all in his opinions and actions, he has never been a bright person nor a bright or even good administrator. He's not to be trusted at all; ask Josefina Vazquez Mota.
If you guys are interested, you may do a very basic search on the web and read by yourselves.


----------



## GARYJ65

TundraGreen said:


> Sounds like a personal opinion, not universally shared, if ever there was one.
> 
> Added note: I am not necessarily a fan of Señor Vicente Fox. I just thinking dismissing anyone as an "idiot" is too simplified even for true idiots by either dictionary definition.
> 
> 1. Informal. an utterly foolish or senseless person.
> 2. Psychology . (no longer in technical use; considered offensive) a person of the lowest order in a former and discarded classification of mental retardation, having a mental age of less than three years old and an intelligence quotient under 25.


I forgot saying he is a thief; when George Bush visited Mexico, dear Mr Fox spent lots and lots of pesos to fix the place where he was going to entertain Mr Bush: his own ranch!


----------



## m109pilot

*wake up*



cscscs007 said:


> Illegal and needs to stay that way. You can put frosting on a turd and call it whatever you want, but it's still a turd.


Perhaps you’re from a different generation or just not that up on the topic but the drug laws that are in effect in North America are the primary contributor to violence and cartel activity. 
If the laws were to change and pot became legal in the USA and Canada we would see a lot less issues with gang violence, and it would give the people that grow the stuff a way of making a decent living.

Canabis has many uses and most have been around for centurys, perhaps do a little research


----------



## GARYJ65

m109pilot said:


> Perhaps you&#146;re from a different generation or just not that up on the topic but the drug laws that are in effect in North America are the primary contributor to violence and cartel activity.
> If the laws were to change and pot became legal in the USA and Canada we would see a lot less issues with gang violence, and it would give the people that grow the stuff a way of making a decent living.
> 
> Canabis has many uses and most have been around for centurys, perhaps do a little research


I know it has many uses, but the most part of people use it as a drug, smoke it or some other ways.
Why is it so appealing for people to feel its effects? Why do some people keep looking to ingest or sniff or smoke or inject themselves with something to feel different?
Is it really necessary to get stuck with a liquid or a substance to be free? To feel different? To be happy? To understand things "the right way"?

Why do parents don't teach their children to not hurt themselves by using stuff?
We should change many things here, have you noticed in the movies and tv that every time that a stressful situation happens, they say: "I need a drink" or when people get to their homes, first thing they do is... Have a drink...
Wow, those things carry the wrong message


----------



## Isla Verde

GARYJ65 said:


> I know it has many uses, but the most part of people use it as a drug, smoke it or some other ways.
> Why is it so appealing for people to feel its effects? Why do some people keep looking to ingest or sniff or smoke or inject themselves with something to feel different?
> Is it really necessary to get stuck with a liquid or a substance to be free? To feel different? To be happy? To understand things "the right way"?
> 
> Why do parents don't teach their children to not hurt themselves by using stuff?
> We should change many things here, have you noticed in the movies and tv that every time that a stressful situation happens, they say: "I need a drink" or when people get to their homes, first thing they do is... Have a drink...
> Wow, those things carry the wrong message


Gary, though we may be from different generations, I completely agree with these comments of yours. Though I came of age in the late 60s and early 70s, when most people my age were into smoking marijuana and popping pills of dubious origin, I wasn't interested in altering reality in that way. When friends asked why, I told them that I got high from the sunshine. This was especially true during the years I lived in frigid Wisconsin. After long dreary cold winters, the first warm spring day really did make me high!

I will confess to imbibing in alchoholic beverages at parties and enjoying a small glass of wine with meals, but that's about it for me, except for a good cup of coffee to start the day!


----------



## GARYJ65

Isla Verde said:


> Gary, though we may be from different generations, I completely agree with these comments of yours. Though I came of age in the late 60s and early 70s, when most people my age were into smoking marijuana and popping pills of dubious origin, I wasn't interested in altering reality in that way. When friends asked why, I told them that I got high from the sunshine. This was especially true during the years I lived in frigid Wisconsin. After long dreary cold winters, the first warm spring day really did make me high!
> 
> I will confess to imbibing in alchoholic beverages at parties and enjoying a small glass of wine with meals, but that's about it for me, except for a good cup of coffee to start the day!


I don' t live in mars, and I am far from being a holly man, I also enjoy wine, some beer, but to take drugs... To get drunk... It seems that in our cultures that represents to have fun, to be hip, to be open. People hurt themselves that way and many times they hurt or kill some others, as well as make stupid drug dealers richer and more powerful.
What's wrong with people? Do they really need reassurance with substances? Do they need them to be legal in order for it to be ok to consume them?


----------



## GARYJ65

Isla Verde said:


> Gary, though we may be from different generations, I completely agree with these comments of yours. Though I came of age in the late 60s and early 70s, when most people my age were into smoking marijuana and popping pills of dubious origin, I wasn't interested in altering reality in that way. When friends asked why, I told them that I got high from the sunshine. This was especially true during the years I lived in frigid Wisconsin. After long dreary cold winters, the first warm spring day really did make me high!
> 
> I will confess to imbibing in alchoholic beverages at parties and enjoying a small glass of wine with meals, but that's about it for me, except for a good cup of coffee to start the day!


Different subject: 
Are you familiar with Les Leuthiers?


----------



## Isla Verde

GARYJ65 said:


> Different subject:
> Are you familiar with Les Leuthiers?


Nope. Please explain.


----------



## GARYJ65

Isla Verde said:


> Nope. Please explain.


Since your spanish is so good, I thought you may like it
If you can, search for them in youtube

I'd like to know if you like it


----------



## GARYJ65

Isla Verde said:


> Nope. Please explain.


Les Luthiers


----------



## Isla Verde

GARYJ65 said:


> Since your spanish is so good, I thought you may like it
> If you can, search for them in youtube
> 
> I'd like to know if you like it


I found them on You Tube. Not sure I got the humor. But then, I often don't get Mexican humor, and Les Luthier are from Argentina, where they speak an often unusual form of the language!


----------



## GARYJ65

Isla Verde said:


> I found them on You Tube. Not sure I got the humor. But then, I often don't get Mexican humor, and Les Luthier are from Argentina, where they speak an often unusual form of the language!


Go on...I think you will get to like them


----------



## Isla Verde

GARYJ65 said:


> Go on...I think you will get to like them


I'll let you know . . .


----------



## cscscs007

m109pilot said:


> Perhaps you’re from a different generation or just not that up on the topic but the drug laws that are in effect in North America are the primary contributor to violence and cartel activity.
> If the laws were to change and pot became legal in the USA and Canada we would see a lot less issues with gang violence, and it would give the people that grow the stuff a way of making a decent living.
> 
> Canabis has many uses and most have been around for centurys, perhaps do a little research




It seems to me that your whole comment is based upon speculation.

I can agree that marijuana may well be beneficial for medical purposes. There are several prescriptions that are available such as Sativex, currently in clinical trials in the US, and Dronabinol/Marinol, a synthetic version approved by the FDA in 1985 for nausea and in 1992 for appetite stimulation. 

"We would see a lot less issues with gang violence" is pure speculation. I have seen no proof that legalization would affect gangs and cartels. If anything, I have only seen proof that gangs and cartels would still produce their product, and to make up lost revenue they would focus on other drugs and crime. How is that a win?

Reasoning that legalization would allow "the people that grow the stuff a way to make a decent living" does absolutely nothing for me. Those people have a choice. They can either find a job that is legal, or create a business that doesn't violate the law. The real reason is the same as the gangs and cartels, it is easy money. 

Cannibus may have been around for centuries, but so has opium. So has cocaine. So has Peyote and mushrooms. Where is the line drawn as to acceptable and unacceptable? 

Let's be honest here, what's the "real" reason for legalization? The only thing I can find that comes close to making sense is the reduction of cost relating to incarcerating people for drug offenses. The cost to do so is staggering, and probably increases every year. So, if marijuana were legalized for only this reason what would happen to the money that would be saved? Would it be used for treatment facilities? Would it be used to pay down the debt? Would it be returned to the taxpayers? Or would it be used to fund another war or conflict, or get used up to fund some nonsensical budget add-on that some senator wants for his state? When has the US government last balanced it's budget and payed off it's debt? Clinton was only able to balance the budget, not pay off the debt. Look way back to 1835 when Andrew Jackson was President who was the first, and the last one to do it all. 

By the way, both Clinton and Jackson were Democrats. 

Perhaps do a little research.................................


----------



## alexdz

cscscs007 said:


> ...
> Let's be honest here, what's the "real" reason for legalization? The only thing I can find that comes close to making sense is the reduction of cost relating to incarcerating people for drug offenses. The cost to do so is staggering, and probably increases every year. So, if marijuana were legalized for only this reason what would happen to the money that would be saved? Would it be used for treatment facilities? Would it be used to pay down the debt? Would it be returned to the taxpayers? Or would it be used to fund another war or conflict, or get used up to fund some nonsensical budget add-on that some senator wants for his state? When has the US government last balanced it's budget and payed off it's debt? Clinton was only able to balance the budget, not pay off the debt. Look way back to 1835 when Andrew Jackson was President who was the first, and the last one to do it all.
> 
> By the way, both Clinton and Jackson were Democrats.
> 
> Perhaps do a little research.................................


It's interesting to me that after more than 100 posts on this subject the "cost" of drug prohibition has never been boiled down any further than the dollar value. The US is the #1 incarcerator of human beings in the world and many of them are there for offenses related directly or peripherally to the "war on drugs." Those people really are invisible aren't they?


----------



## cscscs007

Here is something I found in relation to those incarcerated for marijuana offenses. 


http://www.famm.org/Repository/Files/FAQ Marijuana Cases 4.24.12.pdf



103 federal cases for possession out of around 6,200 marijuana sentences during a year. The rest? Trafficking or growing. 

To me that means it was not intended for personal use only, they were in it to make money.


----------



## johnmex

Q6: What are the racial demographics of federal marijuana offenders? A: Over two-thirds (66.5%) of all federal marijuana offenders in 2011 were Hispanic. Almost a quarter (22%) were white, 8% were black, and 3% were of other races.

OMG! What a surprise! Racial profiling perhaps? Perhaps not?

What conspiracy can we link to this statistic? Come on people, be creative...


----------



## GARYJ65

What is it we are talking about here?

Legalize marihuana where? Mexico? The US? Both? Everywhere?
Do people really need to use it? Do we really want it to be available legally? What for?
Is it for the sick people? Because of its pain relief properties or as a drug? 
Do we, yes, all of us, really have a need and strong reasons for cannabis to be sold at the stores?
Is this subject really a no brainer and goverments are forbidding us from something harmless and great? Is it so?
Or is it just a small talk, endless topic between people that like or would like to get stoned on cannabis and people that think that cannabis as well as some other things, such as tobacco, should be more controlled?

Are we sure thar if every substance, object and devise would be legal, we would know how to use that freedom?


----------



## Guategringo

GARYJ65 said:


> What is it we are talking about here?
> 
> Legalize marihuana where? Mexico? The US? Both? Everywhere?
> Do people really need to use it? Do we really want it to be available legally? What for?
> Is it for the sick people? Because of its pain relief properties or as a drug?
> Do we, yes, all of us, really have a need and strong reasons for cannabis to be sold at the stores?
> Is this subject really a no brainer and goverments are forbidding us from something harmless and great? Is it so?
> Or is it just a small talk, endless topic between people that like or would like to get stoned on cannabis and people that think that cannabis as well as some other things, such as tobacco, should be more controlled?
> 
> Are we sure thar if every substance, object and devise would be legal, we would know how to use that freedom?


Gary have you been to Holland? Visited their "cafes" those establishments were coffee is the secondary point of interest and smoking pot is the first? All legal! 

I look at it this way, and I am not a pot smoker. Smoked it twice or three times in Jamaica back in the late 1980s, but I become too paranoid and wanted to sit in a corner so no one could sneak up on me.

Cigarettes - taxed, legal we smoke them then we die.
Alcohol - taxed, legal we drink get drunk fall over, drive and kill someone else or ourselves
Prescription painkillers - expensive, we take them get hooked, overdose and die.
Marijuana - ILLEGAL - unregulated people smoke it get happy, get the munchies get fat...just like Santa Claus happy and jolly.

So why are the things that are legal killing us yet they are still legal? We should be asking ourselves when is marijuana going to be legal and not if.


----------



## mickisue1

There is something in the human psyche that wants to change, even if just for a short time, the way it sees the world.

Alcohol is a central nervous system depressant; when you are wound up, it unwinds you, if you have one or maybe two drinks. More, and the "depressant" part takes over; people become morose, or belligerent.

Marijuana usually mellows without the accompanying depression. GG, your body's response was interesting to me, never heard of that one before.

Cigarettes, because nicotine is a vasoconstrictor, can cause mild mental changes, too. If you are NOT a smoker, and take a deep drag or two, you'll notice the feeling of dizziness from the blood vessels in your brain constricting the blood flow there.

The bottom line, to me, is that, in comparison to ETOH and nicotine, the effects of marijuana are mild and transient. Nicotine is inherently addictive, alcohol stimulates the pleasure centers in susceptible people and can lead to addiction, whereas marijuana is much less associated with addiction.

It's senseless, in any country, to criminalize a relatively benign behavior, especially when other, similar but more ultimately toxic behaviors are legal. As noted, the "cost" of keeping the use, sale and growing of marijuana criminal is not only in the fiscal sense, but the human costs, as well.

I mentioned this before, but I have no personal stake in the legalization of marijuana. I've used it, but rarely, and not for a long time. I don't need it; I rarely drink, and don't smoke or use other drugs, either. I seem to prefer to experience life straight. Not a condemnation of those who make other choices, just an observation.

Like Isla, I used to tell my friends that I was "high on life". And MN is right next door to WI, so there you are!


----------



## FHBOY

GARYJ65 said:


> What is it we are talking about here?
> 
> Legalize marihuana where? Mexico? The US? Both? Everywhere?
> Do people really need to use it? Do we really want it to be available legally? What for?
> Is it for the sick people? Because of its pain relief properties or as a drug?
> Do we, yes, all of us, really have a need and strong reasons for cannabis to be sold at the stores?
> Is this subject really a no brainer and goverments are forbidding us from something harmless and great? Is it so?
> Or is it just a small talk, endless topic between people that like or would like to get stoned on cannabis and people that think that cannabis as well as some other things, such as tobacco, should be more controlled?
> 
> Are we sure thar if every substance, object and devise would be legal, we would know how to use that freedom?


I believe the discussion is more aimed at legalization in the USA. As a USA expat, it would be my area of discussion, even though I have no plans to return to the USA. The issue of legalization in Mexico is of secondary relevance, and obiviously not be being Canadian, that is a close third.

Need is not the issue, want is. Do people need to smoke tobacco and drink alcohol? We've beaten the topic of legalization on this thread to near death, so further comment on that are just icing on the cake. 

What is it for? For enjoyment if that is your thing, like tobacco, alcohol, TV, opera - just for enjoyment, if that is your thing.

It seems the main reason for it to be sold in stores is the safety and regulation similar to booze. The tax revenues are a secondary consideration and the lessening of strain on law enforcement is yet another reason for it to sold in stores, over the counter and legal.

Yes, for me it is a no brainer - we spend far too much on this drug, too many words (like here) and too much person power. Harmless? No, it can be as harmful as alcohol, but getting stoned on grass makes one to mellow out and sleep, I've not heard of a rowdy stoner picking a fight in a bar and then driving home. 

Lastly, I do believe in us and our ability, as adults, [any legalization should follow the guidelines not in place for tobacco and alcohol] to use any drug in a responsible manner. Of course, there will always be those who do not.

The main issue is the analogy to Prohibition in the early 20th century in the USA. We, the USA, waste too many resources on a drug that is no more, if not less, dangerous to health and welfare than alcohol and tobacco - and there are too many other things that need the resources than to impose a ban on a substance that has not been proven as harmful.

This, BTW, in not an argument for other opiates, meth, acid or such. I am firmly on the side to keep these things illegal and enforce laws on them.


----------



## GARYJ65

Guategringo said:


> Gary have you been to Holland? Visited their "cafes" those establishments were coffee is the secondary point of interest and smoking pot is the first? All legal!
> 
> I look at it this way, and I am not a pot smoker. Smoked it twice or three times in Jamaica back in the late 1980s, but I become too paranoid and wanted to sit in a corner so no one could sneak up on me.
> 
> Cigarettes - taxed, legal we smoke them then we die.
> Alcohol - taxed, legal we drink get drunk fall over, drive and kill someone else or ourselves
> Prescription painkillers - expensive, we take them get hooked, overdose and die.
> Marijuana - ILLEGAL - unregulated people smoke it get happy, get the munchies get fat...just like Santa Claus happy and jolly.
> 
> So why are the things that are legal killing us yet they are still legal? We should be asking ourselves when is marijuana going to be legal and not if.


I am familiar with holland and their drug laws, Dutch people are not happy about their situation, the ones that don't consume, this is.
On the other hand, we could as well stiffen our drugs policies as they do in southeast asia and by doing that, I would like to know who may think of smuggling or using!
I am much more on the harsh control side, I don't trust in our hability to judge what is good and when to stop. 
Marijuana is not healthy stuff, affects lungs, affects fertility, affects babies when used during pregnancy, affects our senses.
Some people say it's recreational, for decades, in Mexico people that use it get a not very nice name: mariguano, and people do not think well about such person. Myself, I think there is nothing to think well about marihuana users.

As for tobacco and alcohol abuse, I think we should also stiffen the laws for them.

If people want to use them, fine, if they get in a fight, or get caught driving or operating machinery, or they harm other person or their belongings while under the influence, then the penalties should be multiplied by ten. Why not?????

This is just me


----------



## GARYJ65

Read this one article

http://www.theweedblog.com/toughest-marijuana-laws-around-the-world/


----------



## Isla Verde

Here's an interesting footnote on an attempted change to the legal drug scene in the Netherlands: Dutch scrap law banning cannabis across Holland | Mail Online.


----------



## GARYJ65

Isla Verde said:


> Here's an interesting footnote on an attempted change to the legal drug scene in the Netherlands: Dutch scrap law banning cannabis across Holland | Mail Online.


Very interesting indeed!
As I said, from my Dutch friends, they are not quite happy with their drug laws

In any case, as a Mexican, I would not want drug turists, or wider drug usage, for drug users, let them go to Holland or anywhere else, life is beautiful neat, as it comes


----------



## Isla Verde

GARYJ65 said:


> Very interesting indeed!
> As I said, from my Dutch friends, they are not quite happy with their drug laws


Could you give us more details about what your Dutch friends don't like about the drug laws in their country?


----------



## GARYJ65

Isla Verde said:


> Could you give us more details about what your Dutch friends don't like about the drug laws in their country?


Of course: they do not like people in the streets, under the influence, they do not like children to see that as " normal" they do not like drug tourism, also, when people take drugs, even if they are legal, they try to do things, like driving.....


----------



## Isla Verde

GARYJ65 said:


> Of course: they do not like people in the streets, under the influence, they do not like children to see that as " normal" they do not like drug tourism, also, when people take drugs, even if they are legal, they try to do things, like driving.....


Completely understandable objections. From articles I've read about the effects of the Dutch drug laws on Dutch society, I get the idea that "drug tourism" has become an important part of the economy in some parts of the country. No doubt this is one reason why the attempt mentioned in the article I posted to limit sales of pot and related substances to Dutch citizens failed.


----------



## ehw23

Yeah, the thread has already been beaten to death...its pure opinion and discussion now. Its obv a popular thread for those for and against it.

Hasnt Uruguay already legalized it and im sure theyre reaping the benefits (hemp included).

Dec of indep was written on hemp. 
Theres no doubt its medicinal properties help those in need.


The two sides have their arguments and facts already out there.
Its clear which is right and which is not. 

Ppl who want it legal must fight to get it legal...and it seems like it is slowly working...just a matter of when. 

I always have mexican citizens Tell me "Hey so you guys can go to war at 18, but have to wait til your 21 to have a beer."

Thats just an example of usa at its finest. We will see changed Soon..let the people decide as time passes.


----------



## AlanMexicali

I have to wonder why the Tobacco Lobbyists, Alcohol Lobbyists, Pharmaceutical Lobbyists and the AMA have not been mentioned?


----------



## Mexberry

I agree. If you want to be separated from your head, your bank account or both, then go ahead and enjoy your smoke! The BBC reported 81 headless torsos were discovered in various parts of Mexico last month!
All drug related executions.


----------



## FHBOY

Mexberry said:


> I agree. If you want to be separated from your head, your bank account or both, then go ahead and enjoy your smoke! The BBC reported 81 headless torsos were discovered in various parts of Mexico last month!
> All drug related executions.


No one is denying drug violence both here in Mexico and in the USA, but I must take issue with your post as to relevance to the marijuana legalization issue. While it may be factually correct, and relevant to the problem of illegal drugs, it is out of place in this discussion.

In another view, your citation is a support of the legalization of marijuana issue, if only to take marijuana out of the equation. If the cause of the unfortunate individuals who lost their heads and lives could be conclusively only to marijuana, then you are right on.

Unfortunately, we cannot draw the link. As stated many time before, the issue being discussed in not the legalization of all illegal drugs, but just marijuana.


----------



## ehw23

FHBOY said:


> No one is denying drug violence both here in Mexico and in the USA, but I must take issue with your post as to relevance to the marijuana legalization issue. While it may be factually correct, and relevant to the problem of illegal drugs, it is out of place in this discussion.
> 
> In another view, your citation is a support of the legalization of marijuana issue, if only to take marijuana out of the equation. If the cause of the unfortunate individuals who lost their heads and lives could be conclusively only to marijuana, then you are right on.
> 
> Unfortunately, we cannot draw the link. As stated many time before, the issue being discussed in not the legalization of all illegal drugs, but just marijuana.


I delayed in replying because I knew someone would take it right out of my mouth/hands.

Apples and oranges! lane:lane:lane:


----------



## ptrichmondmike

*Well, what an interesting and comprehensive discussion!*

Fascinating thread, for many reasons. Thank you all, even Mr. Sourpuss Puritan.

I've smoked weed on an almost daily basis for 46 years -- and I believe it's why I'm still alive and sane and recently turned a healthy 66, despite the fact that I have also smoked a pack of cigarettes on average every day since I was 13. Addictive personality? You bet. But I don't get colds or the flu or anything else like that, no shortness of breath, no coughs, nada. I realize that I'm lucky. But I also believe -- and a recent medical study encourages further research in this area -- that marijuana has shielded me from the worst effects of tobacco and other poor choices, including alcohol. It's a quite remarkable substance. And on those occasions where I don't have any, it's no big deal. It's NOT physically addictive, though it can certainly be a habitual addiction.

I've had a very successful career in the non-profit world that has helped advance the aspirations and good deeds of many individuals and organizations. I have plenty of friends, a wide and loving extended family, and don't have any legal problems. In short, fantasies about marijuana ruining lives are just that -- fantasies.

But I've also learned from this thread that I'd better not retire to Mexico...a dream I've nurtured for decades. What a pity. What stupid laws.


----------



## GARYJ65

ptrichmondmike said:


> Fascinating thread, for many reasons. Thank you all, even Mr. Sourpuss Puritan.
> 
> I've smoked weed on an almost daily basis for 46 years -- and I believe it's why I'm still alive and sane and recently turned a healthy 66, despite the fact that I have also smoked a pack of cigarettes on average every day since I was 13. Addictive personality? You bet. But I don't get colds or the flu or anything else like that, no shortness of breath, no coughs, nada. I realize that I'm lucky. But I also believe -- and a recent medical study encourages further research in this area -- that marijuana has shielded me from the worst effects of tobacco and other poor choices, including alcohol. It's a quite remarkable substance. And on those occasions where I don't have any, it's no big deal. It's NOT physically addictive, though it can certainly be a habitual addiction.
> 
> I've had a very successful career in the non-profit world that has helped advance the aspirations and good deeds of many individuals and organizations. I have plenty of friends, a wide and loving extended family, and don't have any legal problems. In short, fantasies about marijuana ruining lives are just that -- fantasies.
> 
> But I've also learned from this thread that I'd better not retire to Mexico...a dream I've nurtured for decades. What a pity. What stupid laws.


Could you send information on that recent study you mention?
If marijuana has shielded you from the effects of tobacco, and you can prove it, you should make it public, so that everyone knows we are living in a made up fantasy and we could, if we feel like it, smoke tobacco and pot and then nothing will happen to us. Sounds great to me!

And yes, in Mexico we do have stupid laws, but guess what, they are OUR laws! and no one is inviting you to come or critisize, so, you would be taking the right decision by not retiring here.


----------



## FHBOY

GARYJ65 said:


> Could you send information on that recent study you mention?
> If marijuana has shielded you from the effects of tobacco, and you can prove it, you should make it public, so that everyone knows we are living in a made up fantasy and we could, if we feel like it, smoke tobacco and pot and then nothing will happen to us. Sounds great to me!
> 
> And yes, in Mexico we do have stupid laws, but guess what, they are OUR laws! and no one is inviting you to come or critisize, so, you would be taking the right decision by not retiring here.


If indeed illegal marijuana is a part of your life for the last umpteen years, why would breaking the law in Mexico make it any different from breaking the law in the USA, aren't both laws equally stupid? And since the USA has this stupid law wouldn't make more sense to leave there to a place where the law was more to one's preference - in this case where marijuana is legal?

I do believe that every place has some stupid laws, I think there is a website just for the USA with stupid laws from all 50 states that are still on the books. The illegal marijuana law in the USA is a stupid law. The lack of a comprehensive health law (and unfortunately the ACA is helping just a bit) is a stupid law by not being a law. We had a stupid law about driving 55 mph during the gas crisis, it has gone away.

Here's the point, we all live with stupid laws wherever we live and it a choice we make when we choose a life style. I do not know which laws in Mexico are being delineated a stupid by the poster, but so far, I've not found any. Now, mordida is stupid, but it is not the law.

I close with this: the USA allows young men and women to be put into harms way in the service of the nation at the age of 18, [18 year old males registering for it is the law] they are given a gun, taught to kill, suffer deprivation in a soldiers/sailors/marines life, and then when they come home they are not allowed, by law, to drink. Huh? Many years ago, they were not even allow to vote for/against the very people who put them in harm's way...and it was the law. 

From "The Eve of Destruction" written by P. F. Sloan in 1965 and sung by Barry Sadler:
"You're old enough to kill,
But not for votin'..."
Now the USA has changed that law, but instead:

"You're old enough to kill,
but not for drinkin'..."

You see, it is just which laws are chosen for the argument - we can all dig up stupid laws.


----------



## mickisue1

FHBOY said:


> If indeed illegal marijuana is a part of your life for the last umpteen years, why would breaking the law in Mexico make it any different from breaking the law in the USA, aren't both laws equally stupid? And since the USA has this stupid law wouldn't make more sense to leave there to a place where the law was more to one's preference - in this case where marijuana is legal?
> 
> I do believe that every place has some stupid laws, I think there is a website just for the USA with stupid laws from all 50 states that are still on the books. The illegal marijuana law in the USA is a stupid law. The lack of a comprehensive health law (and unfortunately the ACA is helping just a bit) is a stupid law by not being a law. We had a stupid law about driving 55 mph during the gas crisis, it has gone away.
> 
> Here's the point, we all live with stupid laws wherever we live and it a choice we make when we choose a life style. I do not know which laws in Mexico are being delineated a stupid by the poster, but so far, I've not found any. Now, mordida is stupid, but it is not the law.
> 
> I close with this: the USA allows young men and women to be put into harms way in the service of the nation at the age of 18, [18 year old males registering for it is the law] they are given a gun, taught to kill, suffer deprivation in a soldiers/sailors/marines life, and then when they come home they are not allowed, by law, to drink. Huh? Many years ago, they were not even allow to vote for/against the very people who put them in harm's way...and it was the law.
> 
> From "The Eve of Destruction" written by P. F. Sloan in 1965 and sung by Barry Sadler:
> "You're old enough to kill,
> But not for votin'..."
> Now the USA has changed that law, but instead:
> 
> "You're old enough to kill,
> but not for drinkin'..."
> 
> You see, it is just which laws are chosen for the argument - we can all dig up stupid laws.


Indeed, FHBoy. I remember, back in the 70s, there was still a law on the book in Minneapolis that forbad hanging men's and women's underwear on the same clothesline. I, of course, gleefully broke it whenever I could.

I would also like to see a link to the study. Also, to see it replicated; one study can be rife with poor controls, and it's NEVER wise to assume that one, unreplicated study means anything at all.


----------



## Isla Verde

ptrichmondmike said:


> . . . marijuana has shielded me from the worst effects of tobacco and other poor choices, including alcohol. It's a quite remarkable substance. And on those occasions where I don't have any, it's no big deal. It's NOT physically addictive, though it can certainly be a habitual addiction.


I'm curious - what's the difference between a physical addiction and and a habitual addiction?


----------



## cscscs007

Military service has nothing to do with this, except to show the desperation of those who know they have no firm footing to stand upon. 

Military service is "voluntary" in the US. No one is forced to join and serve, and those that do are proud of their service. It is a badge of honor that doesn't need to be tarnished by pot smokers desperate to grasp at straws in order to find something, anything to stand at the podium and cry foul. To even insinuate this is insulting.


----------



## AlanMexicali

cscscs007 said:


> Military service has nothing to do with this, except to show the desperation of those who know they have no firm footing to stand upon.
> 
> Military service is "voluntary" in the US. No one is forced to join and serve, and those that do are proud of their service. It is a badge of honor that doesn't need to be tarnished by pot smokers desperate to grasp at straws in order to find something, anything to stand at the podium and cry foul. To even insinuate this is insulting.


You just showed your age. I feel he was talking about before during the draft decades before 1973.


----------



## FHBOY

AlanMexicali said:


> You just showed your age. I feel he was talking about before during the draft decades before 1973.


cscscs007:
Yes I was and there was no disrespect aimed at our working volunteer soldiers/sailors/marines, my point was concerning drinking the law makes no sense. Those under 21 are those the USA asks to do so much and yet it doesn't think (?) they are old enough to know how to handle alcohol? Yes, there is a law that is illogical.

The USA have these brave volunteers all over the world as the representatives in places where their sub-21 age would not preclude them from drinking. What sense does it make that when they come home, all of sudden our law says...you're too young to know how to drink? Why because after crossing the border of the USA they are somehow less responsible? C'mon....

No, man, that is a law that makes no sense.

[I will not discuss drunk drivers and such, as within any population there are going to be abusers of all sorts...I am speaking only of these 18 to 21 year olds...I a will not back down, the drinking law is stupid...if you can die for your country, you should be able to drink in it.)

:focus:
Let's go back to marijuana, because the alcohol issue is waaay too complicated.


----------



## cscscs007

When you were 18 would you have been mature enough to go down to the bar or pub and drink responsibly? Would you have stopped after 2 or 3? Would you have driven after leaving?

I can be honest and say no, I would have gone down to get drunk and party with my friends. I would not have stopped with 2 or 3. A couple of cans of "liquid courage" and I would have hopped right behind the wheel to go to the next bar.

Laws are made because people have a tendency to make the wrong choices. Wrong choices have consequences that some are not able to handle at 40 or 50, much less 18.

Marijuana legalized would be abused, plain and simple. Even if it were regulated it would be abused. Marijuana, illegal today, is abused. You can't tell me everyone would use marijuana responsibly. DUI stands for Driving Under the Influence of alcohol, marijuana, or any other type of substance. 

If you want to continue living in the land of the early 70's go ahead. First, you should probably stop using your computer and the internet, it didn't exist back then.


----------



## miltiano32

Isla Verde said:


> I'm curious - what's the difference between a physical addiction and and a habitual addiction?


Isla, the difference between those are, with physical addiction the person is unable to control the aspects of the addiction without help because of the mental or physical conditions involved, such as a person suffering from withdraws whose body needs it to feel 'normal' from prolonged use of hard drugs.

With habitual addiction it would be classified under psychological, your body doesn't need it but it is done by choice. The person with the habit can choose to stop, and will subsequently stop successfully if they want to. The psychological/physical component is not an issue as it is with an addiction. 

Cannabis can certainly be habit forming but can easily be stopped if the person is determined. I stopped for a month just to donate blood because I didn't want THC in my system, its not a long time but I had the will to stop to save peoples lives so its very possible.

I stop smoking every once in a while so I can truly appreciate something so lovely as cannabis when i don't have it. Try it with anything, you really value something when you are without it for a period of time.


----------



## Isla Verde

miltiano32 said:


> With habitual addiction it would be classified under psychological, your body doesn't need it but it is done by choice. The person with the habit can choose to stop, and will subsequently stop successfully if they want to. The psychological/physical component is not an issue as it is with an addiction.


I'm confused. If habitual addiction is psychological, then how can psychological factors not be an issue when someone is trying to stop the addictive behavior?


----------



## miltiano32

Isla Verde said:


> I'm confused. If habitual addiction is psychological, then how can psychological factors not be an issue when someone is trying to stop the addictive behavior?


I'm somewhat confused as well let me try to clarify

Habitual addiction=psychological (correct)
Psychological factors are an issue when trying to stop the addictive behavior because it deals with your mind(mental) as well as your body(physically). Its in my previous post first paragraph. I meant to put and instead of or, so it should have said 

A person is unable to control the aspects of the addiction without help because of the mental and physical conditions. I hope I was able to make it more clear but if you still have questions I will PM you.


----------



## miltiano32

Put simply - with a habit you are in control of your choices, with an addiction you are not in control of your choices. 

Here is my source, I should have posted this instead What Is Addiction? What Causes Addiction?


----------



## GARYJ65

miltiano32 said:


> Put simply - with a habit you are in control of your choices, with an addiction you are not in control of your choices.
> 
> Here is my source, I should have posted this instead What Is Addiction? What Causes Addiction?


It's a very thin line between habit and addiction, mostly when we are talking about substances.
You may think you don't need it, that you can quit anytime, and then...ooops. You can't
Why not staying in the safe side???


----------



## miltiano32

GARYJ65 said:


> You may think you don't need it, that you can quit anytime, and then...ooops. You can't
> Why not staying in the safe side???


Good question Gary, sometimes people like to live on the 'edge'  but seriously though whether whatever they do kills them from the inside out or how they go about their decisions defines their character.

Cannabis doesn't make you want to go out and cause trouble or harm to people so I believe its safer then alcohol which I'm sure some indulge in couple times a week. (Please let's not get into an alcohol debate) that is all. :ranger:


----------



## FHBOY

_Cannabis doesn't make you want to go out and cause trouble or harm to people so I believe its safer then alcohol which I'm sure some indulge in couple times a week. (Please let's not get into an alcohol debate) that is all._ 

And here is a critical part of this argument. What is the proven affect of the drug, THC or alcohol, on behavior? There is much more evidence of abuse and violence from alcohol users. Yes, how do you collect data like that on an illegal substance is a conundrum, would anyone come forward to an "authority" and say, "I am using marijuana now here is what has happened and what I've done." Unfortunately I think not, one would get arrested.

Maybe here is a reason then for, if not the unconditional legalization of marijuana, but an interim legalization* (I know, you can't put the genie back in the bottle once it's out)*, but in theory, a five year suspension of the law banning marijuana use would allow for an empiric study as to the relative affects of the two drugs. 

Additionally, now that I think of it, this five year moratorium of the illegal sale and distribution, making it de facto legal to do so, may so some effects on the distribution network, we are talking about. Would the illegal activity decline during the five years? Would this decline in some way demonstrate that the legal distribution, regulation and taxation of marijuana have a positive or negative effect on the USA? [Since we are discussing the issue vis a vis the USA]

Can't happen, it is too Swiftian to contemplate, but we can really never, scientifically collect the anecdotal evidence of the effects until there is a way to collect them from people who are not afraid to admit to its use.

No, there is no answer to the THC vs alcohol argument. The alcohol argument is very clear and documented...for better or worse. We need that type of data on the THC effects over time. But how?


----------



## pappabee

Hey everyone,

I really think that we’ve worked this thread up, down, back side, front side, underside, and any other side you can think of. (And some of you have thought of a few very interesting sides).

We are never going to change anyone’s mind, give them new thoughts, and convince them that they are right, wrong or maybe something. The topic is not only gotten very old but it has had the results of four or five chest compressions. 

Let’s get on to a much better topic, who’s going to win THE CUP? Ok, or maybe who’s going to beat Miami in basketball? You know, something a little livelier.


----------



## Isla Verde

pappabee said:


> Hey everyone,
> 
> I really think that we’ve worked this thread up, down, back side, front side, underside, and any other side you can think of. (And some of you have thought of a few very interesting sides).
> 
> We are never going to change anyone’s mind, give them new thoughts, and convince them that they are right, wrong or maybe something. The topic is not only gotten very old but it has had the results of four or five chest compressions.
> 
> Let’s get on to a much better topic, who’s going to win THE CUP? Ok, or maybe who’s going to beat Miami in basketball? You know, something a little livelier.


So, pappabee, could it be time to close this thread? Should we take a poll?


----------



## pappabee

I'm all for it. Either one that is.


----------



## Isla Verde

pappabee said:


> I'm all for it. Either one that is.


I will consult with Tundra Green, my fellow moderator on this forum, to decide what to do. After 18 pages of discussion, perhaps it is time to end the discussion.


----------



## mickisue1

pappabee, you could be right. This is a topic that people will talk about ad nauseum, given the opportunity.

I'm related to some of those people, in fact!


----------



## Isla Verde

A student will be arriving soon for a class. When it's over, I´ll have time to close this thread and move the sports related posts to a new thread (THE CUP) in La Chataterría.


----------

