7 ms·

Mexico set to legalize marijuana, becoming world’s largest market

52 points by yboris 6y ago

lucasgonze 6y ago
Better to take a first step than none at all.
- lucasgonze 6y ago
  Even fentanyl and meth should be legal.
  - TheAdamAndChe 6y ago
    Disagree completely. There are irreversible psychological effects from opioid and amphetamine abuse, especially from a neurotoxic amphetamines like meth. Such neurotoxicity or long-term damage potential isn't seen on things like methylphenidate, vyvanse, modafinil or kratom. Not all drugs are the same.
    - sneak 6y ago
      > There are irreversible psychological effects from opioid and amphetamine abuse This is not relevant to whether or not they should be legal. The prohibition on drug use is a moral issue. If we aren't free to cause deliberate harm to our own bodies, the one thing to which we can be sure we have a clear and unambiguous title, what else can we possibly own or control in life? Sawing off my own hand with a circular saw is legal. Why isn't poisoning my own brain?
      - TheAdamAndChe 6y ago
        Part of the purpose of law is to protect society. Damage to many individuals damages society overall.
        loveistheanswer 6y ago
        Is there any compelling evidence that drug or alcohol prohibitions have done an effective job at protecting society? What about the evidence that it has done the opposite, by artifically inflating the price of drugs thereby enriching criminals, gangs, and cartels? In Mexico, we have seen how this can lead to the cartels becoming more powerful than the government.
        sneak 6y ago
        > Part of the purpose of law is to protect society. What makes you feel this way?
        yellowapple 6y ago
        Throwing people in jail for daring to medicate themselves damages society far more severely.
      - malux85 6y ago
        Because by poisoning your brain you go into an addictive cycle and are very likely to harm others via crime and or violence in order to get more. As a society we have to control all negative behaviours - including drug addicts that are willing to harm innocents in order to get their next fix.
        sneak 6y ago
        > Because by poisoning your brain you go into an addictive cycle and are very likely to harm others via crime and or violence in order to get more. We already have laws that criminalize violence and theft, and those apply just fine to drug users who engage in violence or theft. The only possible use for drug laws that apply to all drug users, including ones that do not engage in the (again, already illegal) violence and theft is to criminalize nonviolent drug use. That's morally unjustifiable.
        malux85 6y ago
        Hmmm, I never thought about it that way, I think you're right.
      - mcovalt 6y ago
        > Sawing off my own hand with a circular saw is legal. Why isn't poisoning my own brain? If it was incredibly addictive and loved ones were dying (literally) to saw off their hands, then I'd want to make it illegal.
        loveistheanswer 6y ago
        So do you think tobacco and alcohol should be made illegal?
        mcovalt 6y ago
        My point is that sawing off your hand is a false equivalency. tobacco ≠ meth ≠ alcohol ≠ weed ≠ sawing off hands. We are very derailed from the original conversation. No, I don’t think tobacco and alcohol should be illegal. I do think addictively sawing off your hand should be illegal.
        loveistheanswer 6y ago
        >No, I don’t think tobacco and alcohol should be illegal. I do think addictively sawing off your hand should be illegal. Why should addictively amputating your hand be illegal, but addictively killing yourself by destroying your lungs, heart, or liver not be illegal?
        thatcat 6y ago
        Sawing off your hand doesn't have a profitable business model and lobby group.
        Rebelgecko 6y ago
        I think it's reasonable to compare tobacco + alcohol to marijuana, but from an outside perspective drugs like fentanyl seem to be in a whole different ballpark.
        nate_meurer 6y ago
    - nate_meurer 6y ago
      Alcohol is also a neurotoxin, especially in the amounts consumed by alcoholics. Alchohol is also quite a bit more toxic to the liver than amphetamines. Tobacco smoke is highly toxic to every tissue in your body. So to be logically consistent, I'm sure you also think alcohol and tobacco should be illegal, right?
    - Clubber 6y ago
      >There are irreversible psychological effects from opioid and amphetamine abuse, especially from a neurotoxic amphetamines like meth. I won't disagree with that, but making drugs illegal doesn't curb use. The cost of getting arrested is less than the cost of breaking the addiction. So in essence, you get all that you described, plus a criminal record, legal costs, etc, which lead to no future, which leads to more drug use. The fallacy is making something illegal actually prevents that thing, or even reduces it.
    - imtringued 6y ago
      I am not an expert but wouldn't this just mean that the safe dose is very low? It's entirely possible that what is considered a normal dose today is actually an overdose that merely didn't kill the user.
      - TheAdamAndChe 6y ago
        I recommend you compare the wikipedia pages of both amphetamine and methamphetamine. Meth is directly neurotoxic, even at "normal" doses of 10mg, while amphetamine is actually neuroprotective until you use really big doses. Vyvanse is basically amphetamine hooked to a protein that has to be metabolized before it has psychological effects, so lowers its abuse potential. I'm 100% in favor of amphetamine legalization, but we've got to be smart about it and not allow toxic forms of it to be available. Pure meth should not be legal, nor should pure fentanyl or cocaine(methylphenidate would be a good alternative with a better safety profile)
    - Proven 6y ago
      wut? who are you to tell me what damage i can or cannot do to my body?
  - lucasgonze 6y ago
    Because the underground economy funded by illegal recreational drugs is causing incredible violence. Mexico and Afghanistan, to give just two examples, are in a state of civil war, where one side is the official government and the other is the drug business. This violence is much more harmful than recreational drugs, even the worst of them.
h2odragon 6y ago
Next up: "Oppressed Farmer" stories, how people kept and passed their strains and traditions despite the multiple larger forces using and chewing them. Like the Appalachian bootlegger stories, except they'll be able to use phrases like "honest peasants" and "evil warlords".
yboris 6y ago
My favorite book on this subject is Legalize This!: The Case for Decriminalizing Drugs by Doug Husak https://www.amazon.com/Legalize-This-Decriminalizing-Practical-Ethics/dp/1859843204 https://www.amazon.com/Legalize-This-Decriminalizing-Practic... He argues that since putting someone into prison is the among the worst things society does to people, we need a good reason to do it. When it comes to using drugs, no such reason (has been, or) can be given. Alcohol, tobacco, coffee, and sugar are all drugs. Skiing is dangerous to one's health. Any reason given against drugs should not outlaw things we already think should be legal. He concludes that all drugs should be decriminalized. A historic note: the prohibition of 1920's would be a good approximation of decriminalization the book argues for -- back then the consumers of alcohol were not criminals, only the distributors. Legalization (allowing for sale of drugs) requires a different argument than the book provides.
- Mediterraneo10 6y ago
  Heroin isn’t prohibited just because people get high on it. It is also prohibited because addicts turn to petty crime, whether targeted at innocent loved ones or strangers, to get the money to support their addiction. So, decriminalizing is never a solution alone. It has to be accompanied with providing addicts with a free supply (and ideally a safe and hygienic space to use it in). It does little good for a society to legalize drugs without also rolling out that public medical infrastructure.
  - Out_of_Characte 6y ago
    Not all addicted people are criminals. Putting heroin, or any kind of drug users, who have not committed any crime exept possesion is immoral. Prison is just isolating them while making sure their only friends are criminals. People that are on the streets are clearly not able to function like most people in a society. Punishment cannot be on the table.
    - Mediterraneo10 6y ago
      Nowhere in my post did I advocate jailing users.
mindslight 6y ago
Time to see how sticky the path dependence of criminalization is. I'd think there's a good chance of it remaining de facto illegal to grow/sell in many places, because the cartels won't appreciate competition.
stewofkc 6y ago
*Mexico proceeds to build a wall to keep the flow of American stoners running across the border.*
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
hirundo 6y ago
> With 15 American states having now legalized marijuana, they argue, the crop has become a relatively small part of the Mexican drug trafficking business, with cartels focusing on more profitable products like fentanyl and methamphetamines. That explains why this move isn't a sign that the cartels have lost control of the state. I wonder if they accept the minor loss in profits or see it as more of a gateway to their other products.
- big_youth 6y ago
  Cartels have more power then ever. They essentially run many Mexican states and have bribery deals with politicians from all the rest.
cjbenedikt 6y ago
https://phys-org.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/phys.org/news/2021-03-insatiable-demand-cannabis-giant-carbon.amp https://phys-org.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/phys.org/news/2021-0...

52 points by yboris 6y ago

lucasgonze 6y ago

Better to take a first step than none at all.

lucasgonze 6y ago
Even fentanyl and meth should be legal.
- TheAdamAndChe 6y ago
  Disagree completely. There are irreversible psychological effects from opioid and amphetamine abuse, especially from a neurotoxic amphetamines like meth. Such neurotoxicity or long-term damage potential isn't seen on things like methylphenidate, vyvanse, modafinil or kratom. Not all drugs are the same.
  - sneak 6y ago
    > There are irreversible psychological effects from opioid and amphetamine abuse This is not relevant to whether or not they should be legal. The prohibition on drug use is a moral issue. If we aren't free to cause deliberate harm to our own bodies, the one thing to which we can be sure we have a clear and unambiguous title, what else can we possibly own or control in life? Sawing off my own hand with a circular saw is legal. Why isn't poisoning my own brain?
    - TheAdamAndChe 6y ago
      Part of the purpose of law is to protect society. Damage to many individuals damages society overall.
      - loveistheanswer 6y ago
        Is there any compelling evidence that drug or alcohol prohibitions have done an effective job at protecting society? What about the evidence that it has done the opposite, by artifically inflating the price of drugs thereby enriching criminals, gangs, and cartels? In Mexico, we have seen how this can lead to the cartels becoming more powerful than the government.
      - sneak 6y ago
        > Part of the purpose of law is to protect society. What makes you feel this way?
      - yellowapple 6y ago
        Throwing people in jail for daring to medicate themselves damages society far more severely.
    - malux85 6y ago
      Because by poisoning your brain you go into an addictive cycle and are very likely to harm others via crime and or violence in order to get more. As a society we have to control all negative behaviours - including drug addicts that are willing to harm innocents in order to get their next fix.
      - sneak 6y ago
        > Because by poisoning your brain you go into an addictive cycle and are very likely to harm others via crime and or violence in order to get more. We already have laws that criminalize violence and theft, and those apply just fine to drug users who engage in violence or theft. The only possible use for drug laws that apply to all drug users, including ones that do not engage in the (again, already illegal) violence and theft is to criminalize nonviolent drug use. That's morally unjustifiable.
        malux85 6y ago
        Hmmm, I never thought about it that way, I think you're right.
    - mcovalt 6y ago
      > Sawing off my own hand with a circular saw is legal. Why isn't poisoning my own brain? If it was incredibly addictive and loved ones were dying (literally) to saw off their hands, then I'd want to make it illegal.
      - loveistheanswer 6y ago
        So do you think tobacco and alcohol should be made illegal?
        mcovalt 6y ago
        My point is that sawing off your hand is a false equivalency. tobacco ≠ meth ≠ alcohol ≠ weed ≠ sawing off hands. We are very derailed from the original conversation. No, I don’t think tobacco and alcohol should be illegal. I do think addictively sawing off your hand should be illegal.
        loveistheanswer 6y ago
        >No, I don’t think tobacco and alcohol should be illegal. I do think addictively sawing off your hand should be illegal. Why should addictively amputating your hand be illegal, but addictively killing yourself by destroying your lungs, heart, or liver not be illegal?
        thatcat 6y ago
        Sawing off your hand doesn't have a profitable business model and lobby group.
        Rebelgecko 6y ago
        I think it's reasonable to compare tobacco + alcohol to marijuana, but from an outside perspective drugs like fentanyl seem to be in a whole different ballpark.
        nate_meurer 6y ago
  - nate_meurer 6y ago
    Alcohol is also a neurotoxin, especially in the amounts consumed by alcoholics. Alchohol is also quite a bit more toxic to the liver than amphetamines. Tobacco smoke is highly toxic to every tissue in your body. So to be logically consistent, I'm sure you also think alcohol and tobacco should be illegal, right?
  - Clubber 6y ago
    >There are irreversible psychological effects from opioid and amphetamine abuse, especially from a neurotoxic amphetamines like meth. I won't disagree with that, but making drugs illegal doesn't curb use. The cost of getting arrested is less than the cost of breaking the addiction. So in essence, you get all that you described, plus a criminal record, legal costs, etc, which lead to no future, which leads to more drug use. The fallacy is making something illegal actually prevents that thing, or even reduces it.
  - imtringued 6y ago
    I am not an expert but wouldn't this just mean that the safe dose is very low? It's entirely possible that what is considered a normal dose today is actually an overdose that merely didn't kill the user.
    - TheAdamAndChe 6y ago
      I recommend you compare the wikipedia pages of both amphetamine and methamphetamine. Meth is directly neurotoxic, even at "normal" doses of 10mg, while amphetamine is actually neuroprotective until you use really big doses. Vyvanse is basically amphetamine hooked to a protein that has to be metabolized before it has psychological effects, so lowers its abuse potential. I'm 100% in favor of amphetamine legalization, but we've got to be smart about it and not allow toxic forms of it to be available. Pure meth should not be legal, nor should pure fentanyl or cocaine(methylphenidate would be a good alternative with a better safety profile)
  - Proven 6y ago
    wut? who are you to tell me what damage i can or cannot do to my body?
- lucasgonze 6y ago
  Because the underground economy funded by illegal recreational drugs is causing incredible violence. Mexico and Afghanistan, to give just two examples, are in a state of civil war, where one side is the official government and the other is the drug business. This violence is much more harmful than recreational drugs, even the worst of them.

h2odragon 6y ago

Next up: "Oppressed Farmer" stories, how people kept and passed their strains and traditions despite the multiple larger forces using and chewing them. Like the Appalachian bootlegger stories, except they'll be able to use phrases like "honest peasants" and "evil warlords".

yboris 6y ago

My favorite book on this subject is Legalize This!: The Case for Decriminalizing Drugs by Doug Husak https://www.amazon.com/Legalize-This-Decriminalizing-Practical-Ethics/dp/1859843204 https://www.amazon.com/Legalize-This-Decriminalizing-Practic... He argues that since putting someone into prison is the among the worst things society does to people, we need a good reason to do it. When it comes to using drugs, no such reason (has been, or) can be given. Alcohol, tobacco, coffee, and sugar are all drugs. Skiing is dangerous to one's health. Any reason given against drugs should not outlaw things we already think should be legal. He concludes that all drugs should be decriminalized. A historic note: the prohibition of 1920's would be a good approximation of decriminalization the book argues for -- back then the consumers of alcohol were not criminals, only the distributors. Legalization (allowing for sale of drugs) requires a different argument than the book provides.

Mediterraneo10 6y ago
Heroin isn’t prohibited just because people get high on it. It is also prohibited because addicts turn to petty crime, whether targeted at innocent loved ones or strangers, to get the money to support their addiction. So, decriminalizing is never a solution alone. It has to be accompanied with providing addicts with a free supply (and ideally a safe and hygienic space to use it in). It does little good for a society to legalize drugs without also rolling out that public medical infrastructure.
- Out_of_Characte 6y ago
  Not all addicted people are criminals. Putting heroin, or any kind of drug users, who have not committed any crime exept possesion is immoral. Prison is just isolating them while making sure their only friends are criminals. People that are on the streets are clearly not able to function like most people in a society. Punishment cannot be on the table.
  - Mediterraneo10 6y ago
    Nowhere in my post did I advocate jailing users.

mindslight 6y ago

Time to see how sticky the path dependence of criminalization is. I'd think there's a good chance of it remaining de facto illegal to grow/sell in many places, because the cartels won't appreciate competition.

stewofkc 6y ago

*Mexico proceeds to build a wall to keep the flow of American stoners running across the border.*

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

hirundo 6y ago

> With 15 American states having now legalized marijuana, they argue, the crop has become a relatively small part of the Mexican drug trafficking business, with cartels focusing on more profitable products like fentanyl and methamphetamines. That explains why this move isn't a sign that the cartels have lost control of the state. I wonder if they accept the minor loss in profits or see it as more of a gateway to their other products.

big_youth 6y ago
Cartels have more power then ever. They essentially run many Mexican states and have bribery deals with politicians from all the rest.

cjbenedikt 6y ago

https://phys-org.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/phys.org/news/2021-03-insatiable-demand-cannabis-giant-carbon.amp https://phys-org.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/phys.org/news/2021-0...