Mexico's Second Attempt to Decriminalize Personal Use Possession

By TChris, Section Foreign Affairs
Posted on Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 08:39:39 PM EST
Tags: war on drugs (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

As TalkLeft reported last year, the Mexican Congress passed legislation to decriminalize the casual possession of recreational drugs for personal use. Vincente Fox vetoed the legislation to placate Washington. A new version permitting possession of smaller quantities is on its way to Fox's successor, Felipe Calderon. The question is whether Calderon has the will to stand up to the "War On Drugs" crowd in the Bush administration.

Ruling National Action Party Sen. Alejandro Gonzalez, who heads the Senate's justice commission and supports the bill, said on Monday that decriminalizing possession of small quantities of drugs and taking some pressure off addicts would free up resources needed to pursue dealers.

As TalkLeft wrote last year:

Smart move. The U.S. should take a look at doing the same.

< English-Only Vetoed in Nashville | Missing Weapons and Laptops at the FBI >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Mexico's Second Attempt to Decriminalize Personal Use Possession | 13 comments (13 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Did I miss something (none / 0) (#1)
by bx58 on Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 09:13:47 PM EST

or did Barak Obama make a big statement against the war on drugs? I was ready to vote for the brother.

i wouldn't go betting the rent money on this (none / 0) (#2)
by cpinva on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 12:20:26 AM EST

just yet. again, there's just wayyyyyyyyyyyyy too much cash at stake here, to let mexico go and do something that would screw that up.

expect to see it snuffed again.

: Yep.... (none / 0) (#3)
by kdog on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 08:28:21 AM EST

Somebody at the State Dept. will make a phone call and that'll be the end of the Mexican's silly ideas about personal freedom.

So it's OK for me but not my dealer? (none / 0) (#4)
by lilybart on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 09:17:48 AM EST

Why is it ok for me to have some pot for my own use, but not ok for the guy who sells it to me???

This Drug War BS is incomprehensible.

lilybart, no one ever claimed (none / 0) (#5)
by cpinva on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 12:10:50 PM EST

it made actual sense, silly boy!

it is now, and has been since nixon first proclaimed it, nothing more than one of the bigger scams of the taxpaying and voting public. in fact, the "war on drugs" is a boilerplate for the "war on terrorism": neverending, sucks up huge amounts of national treasure, and a financial windfall for a favored few.

geez, what more could you ask for in a "war"?

: Yep.... (none / 0) (#6)
by kdog on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 12:29:15 PM EST

you gotta love those "Wars on Abstracts"....the ultimate confidence schemes.

It's good for business. (none / 0) (#7)
by Che's Lounge on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 02:16:51 PM EST

Mexico won't because we won't (none / 0) (#8)
by SeeEmDee on Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 07:53:51 AM EST

The DrugWar makes perfect sense...that is, to those who've made an emotional and fiscal investment in it. To all others, particularly the taxpayers who foot the bill for it, it is a net loss. But until the situation becomes so bad that the average citizen feels inconvenienced by it, the status quo will remain. Or as one law professor put it 12 years ago:

"The iron law of prohibitions -- all of them -- is that they are passed by an identifiable US to control the conduct of an identifiable THEM.
And a prohibition is absolutely done for when it does what? Comes back and bothers US. If, at any time, in any way, that prohibition comes back and bothers us, we will get rid of it for sure, every doggone time. Look at the alcohol prohibition if you want a quick example. As long as it is only THEM --- you know, them criminals, them crazy people, them young people, them minority group members --- we are fine. But any prohibition that comes back and bothers US is done for.
Let's just try the marijuana prohibition as a quick one. Who do you think was arrested 650,000 strong two years ago for violation of the marijuana laws? Do you think it was all minority group members? Nope. It was not. It was some very identifiable children of US -- children of the middle class. You don't have to answer my opinion. No prohibition will stand -- ever-- when it comes back and penalizes our children -- the children of US who enacted it. And in fact, do you have any real doubt about that? Do you know what a fabulous sociological study we will be if we become the first society in the history of the world to penalize the sons and daughters of the wealthy class? Unheard of.

And so, yeah, we will continue the War on Drugs for a while until everybody sees its patent bankruptcy."

It's like the Catholic Church keeping Gallileo's and Kepler's books on the forbidden list for centuries; challenges to dogma are not tolerated. And the Church of the Holy Drug War has some pretty fierce acolytes ready to defend the faith. Unfortunately, they are using our tax dollars to do so...and none too well.

criminalizing possession (none / 0) (#9)
by diogenes on Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 10:37:23 AM EST

The solution isn't to decriminalize but to make simple possession a crime which whose trial will be adjourned in contemplation of dismissal if the offender completes drug treatment. If treatment happens, no criminal record.
At least half if not more people in drug treatment are mandated now. They eventually do just as well as nonmandated people, but they would never enter treatment if there were no leverage. Decriminalizing will result in LESS treatment-even if we spent money to build treatment programs, very few people will volunteer to go to groups 3 times a week or to a 28 day rehab. In New York State anyone with medicaid can be in any level of treatment-and people aren't exactly volunteering to be in drug and alcohol treatment.

How simple do you want it? (none / 0) (#10)
by SeeEmDee on Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 02:42:15 PM EST

What never seems to occur to prohibitionists and their apologists is that no amount of tweaking can cause an inherently flawed policy to magically correct itself. No amount of work can change a lump of mud into an apple pie...and prohibitionists have been trying - and failing miserably - at that kind of 'social engineering' alchemy for 93 years with the drug laws.

Worse, they've wasted hundreds of billions, if not a trillion, of the taxpayers dollars pursuing their political 'Philosopher's Stone', and allowed government inroads into what were once matters of indivdual choice...and responsibility. And thus, for all the (supposed) best of reasons, have made what was once a non-problem into a horrible mess.

Prior to the rise of national drug laws, which caused previously cheap products to artificially increase in value (and therefore making them de facto government price supports) making huge profits possible, drug cartels were hardly the international threats that can destabilize entire nations that they are today. This seeming glaringly obvious fact eludes DrugWarriors; they complain of the effects, but refuse to acknowledge the cause. It's like being kicked in the arse but refusing to turn around and see who's doing it.

It's long past time that this game of looking in every wrong direction and trying everything but the one thing that is guaranteed to eliminate the problem cease. But so long as some people's paychecks are dependent upon the maintenance of that game, we'll continue to have the problem.

Aren't almost all laws (none / 0) (#11)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 02:57:12 PM EST

at least somewhat prohibitionist, and passed by an identifiable US to control the conduct of an identifiable THEM?

Did you go to those links? (none / 0) (#12)
by SeeEmDee on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 07:23:00 AM EST

My point is that obvious moral crimes such as murder, rape, child molestation, etc. that are deserving of the strictest censure and punishment are being conflated with consensual matters (such as illicit drug purchases and use). The issue of degree is never addressed by prohibitionists, who want to equate moral crimes with what they believe to be immoral acts. That's how all this got started.

Did you go to those links? (none / 0) (#13)
by SeeEmDee on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 07:23:36 AM EST