Mexico to Decriminalize Drugs (sorta)

Looks like Mexico will see some illegal immigrants soon enough, as young American hippies and junkies make the exodus to the magical land "south of the border".

Quote:

MEXICO CITY (Reuters) - Possessing marijuana, cocaine and even heroin will no longer be a crime in Mexico if they are in small amounts for personal use under new reforms passed by Congress that quickly drew U.S. criticism.

The measure given final passage 53-26 by senators in a late night session on Thursday is aimed at letting police focus on their battle against major drug dealers, and President Vicente Fox is expected to sign it into law.

"This law provides more judicial tools for authorities to fight crime," presidential spokesman Ruben Aguilar said on Friday.

He said the reforms, which were proposed by the government and approved earlier this week by the lower house of Congress, made laws against major traffickers "more severe."

The legislation came as a shock to Washington, which counts on Mexico's support in its war against drug smuggling gangs who move massive quantities of cocaine, heroin, marijuana and methamphetamines through Mexico to U.S. consumers.

"I would say any law that decriminalizes dangerous drugs is not very helpful," said Judith Bryan, spokeswoman for the U.S. Embassy in Mexico City. "Drugs are dangerous. We don't think it is the appropriate way to go."

She said U.S. officials were still studying the reforms, under which police will not penalize people for possessing up to 5 grams of marijuana, 5 grams of opium, 25 milligrams of heroin or 500 milligrams of cocaine.

People caught with larger quantities of drugs will be treated as narcotics dealers and face increased jail terms under the plan.

The legal changes will also decriminalize the possession of limited quantities of other drugs, including LSD, hallucinogenic mushrooms, amphetamines and peyote -- a psychotropic cactus found in Mexico's northern deserts.

Fox has been seen as a loyal ally of the United States in the war on drugs, but the reforms could create new tensions.

A delegation from the U.S. House of Representatives visited Mexico last week and met with senior officials to discuss drug control issues, but was told nothing of the planned legislative changes, said Michelle Gress, a House subcommittee counsel who was part of the visiting team. "We were not informed," she said.

HARDENED CRIMINALS

Hundreds of people, including many police officers, have been killed in Mexico in the past year as drug cartels battle for control of lucrative smuggling routes into the United States.

The violence has raged mostly in northern Mexico but in recent months has spread south to cities like vacation resort Acapulco.

Under current law, it is up to local judges and police to decide on a case-by-case basis whether people should be prosecuted for possessing small quantities of drugs, a source at the Senate's health commission told Reuters.

"The object of this law is to not put consumers in jail, but rather those who sell and poison," said Sen. Jorge Zermeno of the ruling National Action Party.

Hector Michel Camarena, an opposition senator from the Institutional Revolutionary Party, warned that although well intentioned, the law may go too far.

"There are serious questions we have to carefully analyze so that through our spirit of fighting drug dealing, we don't end up legalizing," he said. "We have to get rid of the concept of the (drug) consumer."

(Additional reporting by Anahi Ram)

Source

It's not like drugs will be totally legal, because there's a limit as to what can be carried. I guess they're either sick of locking people up over minor possession, or they're just loco.

Thoughts?

Most amazing jew boots

This is good news. The fact that drugs are illegal clearly doesn't stop anyone from using them. Legalization is the obvious way to stop criminal profit. Mexico hasn't gone all the way to regulated sale, but it is a good first step.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

It's the only option really. Mexico doesn't have the resources to wage such a broad and huge battle, and this law lets them concentrate on the big fry people who need to get knocked out. It's not a wealthy country, and this law from the looks of it, helps them concentrate their resources where they actually matter.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Hey, whatever keeps Mexicans in their own country, I'm all for.

{oh shit did he just say that}

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

I don't know how responsible it is to give the OK to heroin use. Might as well just go Libertarian :\/

I was speaking idiomatically.

Increased personal freedom in one area equals the whole country 'going Libertarian'?

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Well when the government doesn't mind its citizens doing something as dangerous as heroin, yes.

How ya doing, buddy?

Possessing small quantities was OK even without this new law, it was already in the constitution. Anyways, this is still good news.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by Adamgian

It's the only option really. Mexico doesn't have the resources to wage such a broad and huge battle, and this law lets them concentrate on the big fry people who need to get knocked out. It's not a wealthy country, and this law from the looks of it, helps them concentrate their resources where they actually matter.

What they could do to profit from this is to place a tax on these semi-legalized drugs. Sort of like what America does with cigarrettes. That way, they could use the tax money for more important things like education or law enforcement.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by of pom

Well when the government doesn't mind its citizens doing something as dangerous as heroin, yes.

I don't know about that. I'm no expert on the situation in Mexico, but it's not like the state doesn't give a fuck; they're just taking a concrete step that will lessen the influence of drug dealers (or so the government believes), and in the end will benefit the nation as a whole.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

To the one who mentioned heroin being so incredibly dangerous: have you heard of a presciption drug called OxyContin?

Oh, wait, I guess it's only dangerous if you don't have a prescription for it, right?

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Duo Maxwell

Oh, wait, I guess it's only dangerous if you don't have a prescription for it, right?

Exactly. It's the same reasoning behind medicinal ganja.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Pom's point was that if you're going to let your citizens possess heroin, why should other drugs remain illegal? The only thing conceivably worse on the fuck-you-up scale is Methamphetamine, but Meth junkies don't tend to OD.

Heroin itself is a derivitive of Opium. Has opium possession been legal?

I was speaking idiomatically.

Quote:

She said U.S. officials were still studying the reforms, under which police will not penalize people for possessing up to 5 grams of marijuana, 5 grams of opium, 25 milligrams of heroin or 500 milligrams of cocaine.

People caught with larger quantities of drugs will be treated as narcotics dealers and face increased jail terms under the plan.

The legal changes will also decriminalize the possession of limited quantities of other drugs, including LSD, hallucinogenic mushrooms, amphetamines and peyote -- a psychotropic cactus found in Mexico's northern deserts.

Yes, it has. That's the point of this thread. Mexico made them all legal to possess.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

I think it's a step in the right direction for any nation, regardless of GNP.

What do we gain, intrinsically by illegalizing drugs? If you don't want them, don't grow/produce them.

If your concerns are with health, it's healthier to have a system where someone who does have drug-related medical issues can get the treatment needed without fear of incarceration. In addition, it's also nice to not have to worry about getting the necessary periphenalia, i.e. not having share/re-use needles.

FELIPE NO

I also like the idea that we'll make people better by throwing them in prison for five years on account of minor possession. Clearly the way we keep them from being a burden on society is by making them a burden of the state.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Yeah, it's sad but they cost us more as inmates than as homeless people.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

I'm iffy about this. I generally think minor possession of a controlled substance shouldn't be dealt with by throwing the possessor in jail. Look at the prison growth rates in the U.S. to see where that's gotten us.

On the other hand, I don't like the message of acceptance this implies towards the drugs (especially the hard ones like heroin and meth). This doesn't address the demand for the drugs; if anything, it only opens the door to more casual (and soon to be habitual) users.


*or maybe I listened too hard in D.A.R.E.*

There's nowhere I can't reach.

I don't see the inherent problem with acceptance of casual drug use.

I see that it's like taking an evening off to relax, like going to a bar and getting wasted. Except, with drugs like ecstasy, marijuana, coke, mushrooms the effect is not, in general, as prolonged as alcohol (considering that it takes the average adult body about an hour/ounce to process alcohol out of your system, which is about one "drink"). It is possible to use these drugs leisurely and not be an addict. Although, I will say that there isn't particularly anything that exciting about cocaine, it makes you feel kind of just "content" and kind of leaves you with a feeling that you'd do it again, it's a social/party drug.

Part of the myth and propaganda success around drug use is the lack of experiential knowledge. It's not like I'm saying "Hey, everybody should go out and do drugs/alcohol." I just don't think it's really anybody else's place to say that others can't, should they wish to.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by Duo Maxwell

I don't see the inherent problem with acceptance of casual drug use.

I just don't think it's really anybody else's place to say that others can't, should they wish to.

How about employers having a stance against drug use as part of their hiring process? That way you'd be free to do what you wish, but it may limit your options as far as employment. I mean, I wouldn't want an employee that is all fucked up on acid etc.

How ya doing, buddy?

I think there's a double standard between alcohol and drug use, and I admit I see it in myself. I mean, you can die from drinking too much alcohol in one night, but not from smoking too much pot. What Mexico shouldn't be doing, IMO, is legalizing the meth and heroin. My sister's best friend started casually on meth; within a few weeks she had completely degraded into a monster.

One more thing... I think most people are well educated on the possible dangers and effects of alcohol. As for other drugs (like cocaine), I think alot of people probably don't know much. I have to admit I know little of coke and it's effects. Maybe they should be implementing wider education programs of these drugs simultaneously?

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by LizardSC

Maybe they should be implementing wider education programs of these drugs simultaneously?

I agree, but doing such a thing could cost more than the cost of housing those convicted of minor possesion. (Thus, negating the intent of this change.)

Looks like I actually have a reason to go to Mexico, now. lol

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by PUG1911

How about employers having a stance against drug use as part of their hiring process? That way you'd be free to do what you wish, but it may limit your options as far as employment. I mean, I wouldn't want an employee that is all fucked up on acid etc.

The main problem with drug tests is that while someone who smokes a joint once or twice during the weekend will be denied the job while an alcoholic (who might even show up to work drunk on occassion) will test negative and get the job.
I wrote a paper a long while back in my government class concerning the fallacies behind drug testing. It was a little politically biased, I admit, but it got the message across: drug testing needs to be reformed.
In my opinion, the only drug they really ought to test for is crack-cocaine and heroin. Both drugs have users typically engaged in criminal activities (of course that could be debated too).

Originally Posted by Tawnee Stoner

Possessing small quantities was OK even without this new law, it was already in the constitution. Anyways, this is still good news.

Oh?
What exactly does this law change then?

How ya doing, buddy?

Criminalization of drugs really comes down to one philosophical issue: is it the role of the government to protect you from yourself? In the US, lawmakers say "yes", and thus we have seatbelt laws, helmet laws, regulations requiring warnings on electrical products to keep people from using them in the bathtub, drinking age limitations, and laws against possessing and using controlled substances.

Me, I'm in favor of decriminalizing drugs (and subsequently taxing the everliving fuck out them), but then I'm the perverse type who secretly hopes doing so will cause more people will OD and kill themselves. Life is too safe these days.

I don't know if this is precisely the best solution, but anything that diminishes the influence of the drug lords in Mexico is a good thing. The United States has a stick up its ass about its moral principles, but they should really recognize that it's a good move for us too. Less influcence in Mexico means it's harder for the drug lords to get their stuff all the way up here.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by Matt

The main problem with drug tests is that while someone who smokes a joint once or twice during the weekend will be denied the job while an alcoholic (who might even show up to work drunk on occassion) will test negative and get the job.
I wrote a paper a long while back in my government class concerning the fallacies behind drug testing. It was a little politically biased, I admit, but it got the message across: drug testing needs to be reformed.
In my opinion, the only drug they really ought to test for is crack-cocaine and heroin. Both drugs have users typically engaged in criminal activities (of course that could be debated too).

The problem I see is that if drug use is decriminalized, and drug testing is 'not really cool man', is that you'll more or less have to hire crack heads, meth adicts etc. just to avoid being accused of discrimination.

Jam it back in, in the dark.