Mexico supreme court rules ban on marijuana use unconstitutional
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
This is a sane and direct response to exactly that.
says "In 2010, Mexican officials estimated that cannabis now provides the cartels with as much as half of their revenue."
decriminalization != legalization
all the criminal infrastructure and the ills that go with it don't go away after decriminalization alone, but it does at least offer some protection to the end user.
ideally, it needs to eventually be properly legalized and regulated so it can be produced, transported and sold legally while (also ideally) being taxed along the way.
This decision is not sufficient, but if mexico completely legalised drugs, including manufacture, sale and distribution, the cartel violence in mexico would mostly stop, because they'd be legitimate businessmen who could rely on police protection.
The US wouldn't like it, but hey, that's their problem (in theory - in practice they'd make sure this never happened by meddling in foreign affairs as they always do).
I am quite sure that the cost of providing their own security is considerably more than any taxes on legitimate businesses in mexico. So it makes sense for them from a business perspective. Obviously it won't happen overnight. Some of them will adapt and work within the system, others will find that their old ways are not competitive with the legitimate businesses, who have lower overheads.
Obviously there will still be crime, and the cartels that don't adapt will find other criminal enterprises to pursue. But it's hard to see another market that will provide them with comparable income.
It was not my intent for the comment to come off as "anti-american". Just saying that mexico making this change would move the problem to the US, which would then be forced to act, hopefully by following through with a full-on legalisation of their own (not just for marijuana).
I, as a citizen, do vote against politicians who either publicly have those views or have voted on those lines.. But what else can I do, other than emigrate? And that takes money, an advanced degree, and lots of luck to be accepted.
my last comment still applies though... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10503260
If the US does not legalize those drugs, then Mexico will have to take the cost of legalization without it's biggest benefit.
The crimes Mexican people most want to reduce are the violent crimes, the corruption, etc, all caused by people having to deal directly or indirectly with cartels if they want to produce/sell/consume drugs.
As long as the US keeps drugs illegal in their market, people will have to deal with the cartels to be able to sell there, and the US is the biggest market.
One big benefit of legalization of drugs was that the organized criminals wouldn't be able to make money off it, but most of their business is in the US anyway.
Maybe they understand that argument, but disagree with it.
I personally think it rather unlikely that legalization will lead to the dissolution of the cartels. In fact my first (paranoid, almost certainly wrong) thought was that the cartels had some sway with the Mexican Supreme Court.
Most of the time the people who disagree with you are not simply stupid or ignorant, but have different values and don't share all the same assumptions.
The 'war' in Mexico is mostly cartel vs cartel, not unaligned government vs cartel.
So what do they have to lose? That means possible more consumption and possibly less pressure from the non-corrupt portions of the government and/or less legal power for one cartel to wield against another. (They'll have to stick with charges for the rampant human trafficking and slavery by the cartels.)
The idea that the cartels will just dissolve away upon the emergence of legal marijuana and a subsequent Free Market Flowering of the marijuana industry just seems hopelessly naive. Yes, the mafia was, perhaps, not happy about de-Prohibition. But guess what: the American mafia and is still responsible for the majority of organized crime in its area of influence. [1] The legalization of alcohol did not stop the mafia. And the cartels are far more ingrained in Mexican society than the mafia ever was in America. Even assuming someone unaffiliated with a cartel starts growing and selling, and the cartels don't just kill him, they would certainly run protection rackets.
[1] http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014240527487041154045760963...
I did not consider this, i think that makes a lot of sense.
IMHO, Mexicans simply do not see marijuana users the same way Americans do. For Americans, marijuana seems like a soft drug young people often try and later grow out of it. Sure, there is this argument about the gateway drug and all that, but at the end of day many conservative boomers did have first or second hand experience in the 1960's. So it's not a big deal.
Not so for the Mexican people. Specially in the urban population (which I suspect is overrepresented in the poll) the term "mariguano", describes not just a cannabis user, but a deviant user of any low cost drugs. It is low status, so it is easy to demonize, much like "crack-head" or "meth-head" in the US.
So, people is afraid of mariguanos. They do marginal jobs, if at all, then some end up resorting to petty crime to fund their habit. There is also a correlation between drug use and violent crime. I personally think that deviant types will display both higher use rates and higher violence rates than the general population, but most people assume causation right away.
It also does not help that the Catholic Church has taken a very clear cut stance about that. That is not the root cause of people feelings; if the Church took a similar stance against alcohol abuse, literally no one but a handful of old ladies would listen to them. But the Church (as a political agent) is scoring cheap points on the Supreme Court now, and there is very little cost to do that, so they keep doing it.
Therefore, the results of the poll reflect a feeling from the Mexican people: that the government is failing to protect them - again, - and betraying their interest - also again.
Mexico's Supreme Court has no right to say a thing with regards to US law, US policy or US Constitution. The article is talking (very briefly) about Mexican Constitution. One would think that was obvious, but apparently even at Hacker News, gringo's arrogance knows no limit. We do have our own laws and institutions in other countries in case you never have bothered to notice.
Second, it is a very interesting legal case which the article does no justice to (it rather gets lost reporting on the war on drugs, and the posture of conservative elements in society). There is this group of activists (SMART) that made a request to COFEPRIS - a branch of Mexican Government that is roughly equivalent to NIST - so that cannabis can be produced, stored and consumed with no profit motive. This request was obviously rejected, which is what SMART intended.
Since there was a decision of the government that affected their interests, it was possible under Mexican law to demand a "Jucio de Amparo" which can be roughly translated as a "Sanctuary Trial" and it similar to suing the government but not quite. IANAL, but the bottom line as far as I know is that you can demand the court to evaluate and interject decisions from other branches of government if you think your rights are being violated. The SMART activist group did win that trial.
What you are seeing talked about is the last appeal to that trial, which was ruled by the highest court in the country, and which the activists won again. The end result is not legalization, but undermining of the Mexican Government - and in particular law enforcement - ability to crack down on marijuana users with possession charges. If is of course open to debate whether that will benefit society at large or just some interest groups, or who those interest groups might be.
In the long term, this also creates a precedent that might or might not result in the legalization of soft drugs... but it is too early to tell at this point. At the very least the subject, which was taboo not that long ago, is being openly discussed now.
Your first two paragraphs are a seriously unfair characterization of this thread. Obviously Mexico's Supreme Court is ruling about Mexico's constitution.
The remainder of your comment is factual and fine.
And thanks for your compliments too.
What can I do, aside voting and emigration, that will make the US not "export democracy" and in general, not tamper with laws and rulemaking in other sovereign states?
Alcohol is legal in most countries and is widely consumed, certainly much more so than it would be if it were illegal. It can be very addictive, and it an be very destructive, like many drugs which are currently illegal.
I agree use of drugs would probably increase overall, but that society can adapt without collapse. Many people take illegal drugs now from time to time, and are able to function and live normally, have jobs, and not have their world implode.
I personally never liked it that much so I can't see myself being a frequent customer. Haven't touched it in years despite it being 'around.' I will probably go have a first legal toke though when it's legal here (California) just because.
We will wonder why on Earth we ever spent billions of dollars and locked people up in prison to suppress something so... trivial. On the bright side, when it is made legal and nothing much happens all the histrionic drug warriors will look unbelievably stupid and everyone will laugh at them. That's a good thing.
I think as a society is more progressive/efficient to help and support those with drup problems as apposed to locking them up and creating an industry for the trade of 'illegal' drugs. What a waste of time and resource playing cops and robbers for 'drugs', I hope more and more policing groups are noticing this and feeding back over time.
Cannabis and mushrooms, to name some, have been considered and succesfully used as versatile medicine for thousands of years, only to be banned about half a decade ago. Only the last few years this is starting to change, as more and more research shows the medicinal benefits, while debunking most of the lies that have been spread.
Psychedelics 'cure' consumerism, make one more sovereign, enable independent thought, and help you break destructive patterns, by making one see through their life-long conditioning. They make us better people, but worse consumers who need less medicine.
It's quite obvious why these substances are banned, as it's not in the interest of the state to have a flock capable of independent thought, that does not consume a lot and doesn't buy words of division and fear. To clarify even more: the only legal substances are those that cloud our thoughts and make us stupid and dependent, like alcohol or prescribed anti-depressants.
(btw I support legalization of cannabis and other psychs)
It was also the case that it's not cannabis that introduced bad habits, it was that the bad habits led to (the need of) cannabis use to ease my mind.
Now, I use it as a tool for creativity, when I'm working with my music.
I would also like to share this video, about how addiction seems to work: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ao8L-0nSYzg
(I would, however, be looking to other sources of approval. Take Daraprim, the infamous $750 pill - at the time of the price hike, it was trivially available from perfectly safe foreign suppliers at <$1, just not with the FDAs approval. It's only available in the US now at that price because some people found a regulatory loophole that allowed them to sell it without the FDAs approval.)
* http://www.snopes.com/quotes/jefferson/medicine.asp
* http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/if-people-let-gover...
edit: And as for downvotes, I'd say the "going just by the title" part is a bit offensive :)
Large corporate interests could leverage legit logistical infrastructure and take over, plus large corporations are rich and connected enough to get the police to actually enforce the law for them against threats.
[1] http://time.com/3490853/mexico-massacre-students-police-cart...
Edit: Downvoters, I would love to hear why I am wrong. I only know what I read about Mexican law enforcement, no personal experience dealing with them.
Then Anheuser-Busch comes along and plunks down $100 million to build a brewery. Which side is any cop with half a brain going to opt for: the mafiosos trying to cling onto their obsolete business model, or the legit megacorp who'll be paying "facilitation fees" for decades to come?
[1] http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/mexican-drug-cartel-behind-incr...
Perhaps that is out of context, and I don't know their constitution as a whole, but I am not finding a lot of sense in that sentence.
If drug use can be considered a "right to the free development of personality", then how else could America's "right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" be interpreted?
The law is not like an OS that society runs on, that's a very dangerous but sadly pervasive idea. The law is a tool that society uses for its own betterment, hopefully in the service of justice and liberty.
Some love to treat it as sacred, but if it's so sacred how come we've had to amend it so much? Though come to think of it I wouldn't mind a few amendments to the Bible and Koran.
Rather than an objective framework for government, the Constitution has morphed into a shield against discourse, a talisman wielded to justify policies that deserve to be questioned. It's our National Bible, where things are right because see, it says it right there.
As mistakes go, this one is purely cosmetic. It has no actual implications; there would be nothing even minorly surprising about saying "the impeached party wins ties".
Look at the veneration for the founding fathers, even elsewhere in these comments. That's religion, not thoughtful political discourse!
Unfortunately, I have met too many CS types that are surprised by the concept of law interpretation. That's why liberal education is important.
I'm not sure how/if SCOTUS uses the Declaration in their decisions. But it certainly does illuminate the feelings of the founders.
The phrase "el libre desarrollo de la personalidad" however is present in the Mexican constitution, although in its context it isn't clear to me how it applies.
The Declaration of Independence has indeed been cited by the Supreme Court to give evidence of the intent of the drafters of the Constitution, where the phrasing in the Constitution is ambiguous. So you are perfectly correct.
The fact of the matter is that if you're in a position to justify something you strongly believe in, no matter how high, visible, or supposedly rationally-based that position is supposed to be, you're going to find a way to push it through. Look at the ruling in Obergefell; even liberal publications said the legal basis cited for it was rubbish. In the general case, people will use whatever pretense they can to get what they strongly believe in, and justify it by saying that they're making something good happen (that is, the ends justify the means). Social sciences are like 90% this, and from thence comes the phrase "never trust a statistic you haven't faked yourself".
It's not universal, but it happens way more often than most of us want to admit, in every field.
Government does not exist solely to "protect those who can't protect themselves". Whether a person has substantial physical resources with which to "protect himself" or not, that person can petition the government for relief and participate in the democratic process.
The thing here is that "protect people who can't protect themselves" is so generic it can mean anything, just like "the pursuit of happiness" or promotion of "the general welfare". Do you mean protecting employers against employees that want to steal time or goods? Do you mean protecting workers against idlers who want to consume their resources without having done anything to earn them? What about protecting companies against frivolous lawsuits from people just trying to get a big settlement? These likely aren't the problems you're thinking about, but they're the problems some people out there are thinking about.
See what I'm saying? People are going to bias their opinion to favor their individual circumstances, but again, we all have to live under the government's rule, and it needs to be as fair and equitable as possible for everyone. Not just rich people and not just poor people; not just atheists and not just theists; not just healthy people and not just sick people. The interests must be well-balanced to maintain social order.
The closest analogue in the Constituon is the idea that due process protects those fundamental rights inherent in "ordered liberty."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich
However, the drug trade in general is archetypal interstate commerce. Almost nobody grows and processes their own weed or their own cocaine. It all happens through cross-border commercial transactions.
Going further, the purpose of the interstate commerce clause was to give the power to regulate tariffs (and other taxes) between the states, not make entire trades illegal because sometimes those goods are sold elsewhere.
For states where the state's laws agree that the drugs are illegal (i.e. most states now, and all states until relatively recently), there could be a (legal) federal war on drugs so long as the state government does not object. As to the practicality of the enforcement of such objections, we're seeing it play out right now with the states that have legalized it.
Er... really? In my experience, it's quite common.
where I'm from, growing and processing (curing and trimming) your own weed is very common.
this time of year is harvest season in fact.
plenty of odd jobs trimming marijuana pop up seasonally around here because of it.
>The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
or to put it in terms that this forum would appreciate
representatives = {NH:3, MA:8, RI:1 CN:5, NY:6, NJ:4, PA:8, DL:1, ML:6, VA:10, NC:5, SC:5, GA:3}
def census(state): #call this in 3 years, and again in every 10 years
result = 0
for i in state.persons:
if i.free or i.bound_to_service:
result += 1
elif not(i.indian and not i.taxed):
result += 0 #included for clarity
else:
result += 3/5
return max(int(result / 30000),1)
How about we throw out our constitutions and make "be a good person" the law and leave it at that.
The powers not delegated to the United States by
the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the
States, are reserved to the States respectively,
or to the people.
Even though the woman grew cannabis strictly for her own consumption and never sold any, the Supreme Court stated that growing one's own cannabis affects the interstate market of cannabis. The theory was that the cannabis could enter the stream of interstate commerce, even if it clearly wasn't grown for that purpose and that was unlikely ever to happen (the same reasoning as in the Wickard v. Filburn decision). It therefore ruled that this practice may be regulated by the federal government under the authority of the Commerce Clause.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_...
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights,
shall not be construed to deny or disparage others
retained by the people