Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mexico debates legalizing drugs

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Mexico debates legalizing drugs

    By Tim Johnson, McClatchy Newspapers

    MEXICO CITY — A debate about legalizing marijuana and possibly other drugs — once a taboo suggestion — is percolating in Mexico , a national exhausted by runaway violence and a deadly drug war.

    The debate is only likely to grow more animated if Californians approve an initiative on Nov. 2 to legalize marijuana for recreational use in their state.

    Mexicans are keeping a close eye on the vote, seeing it as a bellwether.

    "If they vote 'yes' to approve the full legalization of marijuana, I think it will have a radical impact in Mexico ," said Jorge Hernandez Tinajero , a political scientist at the National Autonomous University .

    Discussion about legalization flew onto the agenda last month, the outcome of President Felipe Calderon's pressing need to win more public support for waging war against criminal organizations profiting hugely from drug trafficking.

    As he held a series of open forums with politicians and civic leaders about faltering security, Calderon suddenly found himself amid a groundswell of suggestions that legalization — which he described as "absurd" — should be considered.

    Among those throwing their weight behind legalization was former President Vicente Fox , a member of Calderon's own conservative National Action Party .

    "We should consider legalizing the production, distribution and sale of drugs," Fox wrote on his blog during the series of forums. "Legalizing in this sense does not mean that drugs are good or don't hurt those who consume. Rather, we have to see it as a strategy to strike and break the economic structure that allows the mafias to generate huge profits in their business."

    Calderon immediately said Mexico couldn't act on its own to legalize.

    "If drugs are not legalized in the world, or if drugs are not legalized at least in the United States , this is simply absurd, because the price of drugs is not determined in Mexico . The price of drugs is determined by consumers in Los Angeles , or in New York , or in Chicago or Texas ," he said.

    Such public debate would have been largely unthinkable a few years ago. Since Calderon came to office in late 2006, however, a national gloom has descended on Mexico from unending cartel violence and a death toll topping 28,000. The grim mood has provided fertile ground for public figures who think that legalization would undercut the power of the drug cartels.

    Among them are business tycoons such as billionaire Ricardo Salinas Pliego , who controls broadcaster TV Azteca, and retailer Grupo Elektra.

    With his own pro-legalization statement, Fox aligned with another former president, Ernesto Zedillo , who suggested last year that prohibition isn't working.

    Still, several analysts said debate about legalization — coming most strongly from the political left — was an attempt to needle Calderon as much as an exploration of whether legalization is feasible.

  • #2
    + YouTube Video
    ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.





    Whoops. Wrong thread.

    Comment


    • #3
      You need to go lie down for a few years.

      Comment


      • #4
        Eff you, dude. That was funny as hell.

        Comment


        • #5
          Yeah, legalizing drugs is a good move. But the cartels are going to be pissed and retaliate. These people need to be eliminated. I´m not talking punishment here, I´m talking outright elimination.

          I remember hearing that a family of a dead mexican soldier was once killed. These kind of things need to be stopped.

          Comment


          • #6
            Marijuana's true potency and why the law should change

            The U.S. war against marijuana has failed and actually threatens public safety and rests on false medical assumptions. Guest columnist John McKay, Seattle's former U.S. attorney, argues why the laws against marijuana should be changed.

            By John McKay

            Special to The Seattle Times

            I DON'T smoke pot. And I pretty much think people who do are idiots.

            This certainly includes Marc Emery, the self-styled "Prince of Pot" from Canada whom I indicted in 2005 for peddling marijuana seeds to every man, woman and child with an envelope and a stamp. Emery recently pleaded guilty and will be sentenced this month in Seattle, where he faces five years in federal prison. If changing U.S. marijuana policy was ever Emery's goal, the best that can be said is that he took the wrong path.

            As Emery's prosecutor and a former federal law-enforcement official, however, I'm not afraid to say out loud what most of my former colleagues know is true: Our marijuana policy is dangerous and wrong and should be changed through the legislative process to better protect the public safety.

            Congress has failed to recognize what many already know about our policy of criminal prohibition of marijuana — it has utterly failed. Listed by the U.S. government as a "Schedule One" drug alongside heroin, the demand for marijuana in this country for decades has outpaced the ability of law enforcement to eliminate it. Perhaps this is because millions of Americans smoke pot regularly and international drug cartels, violent gangs and street pushers work hard to reap the profits.

            Law-enforcement agencies are simply not capable of interdicting all of this pot and despite some successes have not succeeded in thwarting criminals who traffic and sell marijuana. Brave agents and cops continue to risk their lives in a futile attempt to enforce misguided laws that do not match the realities of our society.

            These same agents and cops, along with prosecutors, judges and jailers, know we can't win by arresting all those involved in the massive importation, growth or distribution of marijuana, nor by locking up all the pot smokers. While many have argued the policy is unjust, few have addressed the dangerously potent black market the policy itself has created for exploitation by Mexican and other international drug cartels and gangs. With the proceeds from the U.S. marijuana black market, these criminals distribute dangerous drugs and kill each other (too often along with innocent bystanders) with American-purchased guns.

            Our wrongheaded policy on marijuana has also failed to address the true health threat posed by its use. While I suspect nothing good can come to anyone from the chronic ingestion of marijuana smoke, its addictive quality and health risk pale in comparison with other banned drugs such as heroin, cocaine or meth. Informed adult choice, albeit a bad one, may well be preferable to the legal and policy meltdown we have long been suffering over marijuana.

            Not only does our policy directly threaten our public safety and rest upon false medical assumptions, but our national laws are now in direct and irreconcilable conflict with state laws, including Washington state. So called "medical" marijuana reaches precious few patients and backdoor potheads mock legitimate medical use by glaucoma and chemotherapy patients. State laws are trumped by federal laws that recognize no such thing as "medicinal" or "personal" use and are no defense to arrests by federal agents and prosecution in federal courts.

            So the policy is wrong, the law has failed, the public is endangered, no one in law enforcement is talking about it and precious few policymakers will honestly face the soft-on-crime sound bite in their next elections. What should be done?

            • First, we need to honestly and courageously examine the true public-safety danger posed by criminalizing a drug used by millions and millions of Americans who ignore the law. Marijuana prohibition has failed — it's time for a new policy crafted by informed policymakers with the help of those in law enforcement who have risked their lives battling pot-purveying drug cartels and gangs.

            • Second, let's talk about marijuana policy responsibly and with an eye toward sound science, not myth. We can start by acknowledging that our 1930s-era marijuana prohibition was overkill from the beginning and should be decoupled from any debate about "legalizing drugs." We should study and disclose the findings of the real health risks of prolonged use, including its influence and effect on juveniles.

            • Third, we should give serious consideration to heavy regulation and taxation of the marijuana industry (an industry that is very real and dangerously underground). We should limit pot's content of the active ingredient THC (tetrahydrocannabinol), regulate its sale to adults who are dumb enough to want it and maintain criminal penalties for sales, possession or use by minors, drivers and boaters.

            Federal criminal law should give way to regulation, while prohibiting interstate violation of federal laws consistent with this approach. In short, policymakers should strive for a regulatory and criminal scheme like the one guarding that other commodity that failed miserably at prohibition, alcohol.

            As my law-enforcement colleagues know well from chasing bootleggers and mobsters, this new regulatory and criminal approach will still require many years of intensive investigation and enforcement before organized criminal elements are driven from the vast marijuana market. DEA and its law-enforcement partners must therefore remain well equipped and staffed to accomplish this task: to protect our families from truly dangerous drugs and to drive drug cartels, gangs and dope dealers from our society.

            John McKay is a law professor at Seattle University and the former United States attorney in Seattle

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Orion Pax View Post
              These people need to be eliminated. I´m not talking punishment here, I´m talking outright elimination.
              I agree, but eliminating them could also count as a form of punishment.

              " He who does not punish evil commands it to be done."-Leonardo da Vinci

              Comment


              • #8
                Guess we'll see how much influence the US had on Mexico policy. I'm certain the US government would HATE to have Mexico legalize drugs, since it seems like that would make it that much more impossible to stem the flow across the border.

                And I'm kind of doubtful that the US Government will turn the same blind eye they (largely) have to medical marijuana to recreational pot, should CA legalize it. It is still a federal controlled substance, right? Even if one doesn't agree that it should be, it seems like one would have to acknowledge that as long as the Feds think it should, any state that tries to legalize it for recreational use is going to have serious problems. Maybe CA figures they can tax pot to get out of their financial woes?

                Comment


                • #9
                  The drug gangs have actually gone into drug rehab clinics in Mexico and massacred people.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Spy Smasher, that article is great. I pretty much agree with it. I, too, think smoking pot is stupid, but I think an awful lot of other things that AREN'T illegal are stupid, too (smoking pretty much ANYTHING, getting stinking drunk, watching most reality shows, etc...). An honest evaluation needs to be done of the costs of allowing some people to make what many think is a stupid choice vs. the costs of trying (and largely failing) to stop them from doing so.

                    Of course it won't be because in most parts of the country supporting legalized recreational pot would be political suicide.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Yes, it would be political suicide in many states. But that's a sad commentary about democracy and people's competence to govern themselves, isn't it? That the masses will adamantly fight many ideas that the more intelligent and informed people know would be in their best interests.
                      Trey Strain
                      Guardian of the Universe
                      Last edited by Trey Strain; 09-08-2010, 11:09 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Agree completely.

                        This is good news for Nancy.
                        I LOVE conspiracy theorists. They are like human versions of the cymbal clapping, dancing monkeys. No one takes them all that seriously and they get bored with them after about 10 minutes.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          i see nothing good coming from this ()

                          IonFan says

                          MAGA then, MAGA now, MAGA FOREVER

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Spy Smasher View Post
                            Yes, it would be political suicide in many states. But that's a sad commentary about democracy and people's competence to govern themselves, isn't it? That the masses will adamantly fight many ideas that the more intelligent and informed people know would be in their best interests.
                            However I believe history shows that, in the long run anyway, it is still better than pretty much any alternative. You take the power out of the hands of the people and, while you might get a better government in the short run if things are run by a good person or group of people, in the long run that kind of concentrated power will NEVER stay in the hands of good, competent people. Those people won't live forever, and the more the power is concentrated, the easier it is for an ambitious thug to take it.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Mister Ed View Post
                              However I believe history shows that, in the long run anyway, it is still better than pretty much any alternative. You take the power out of the hands of the people and, while you might get a better government in the short run if things are run by a good person or group of people, in the long run that kind of concentrated power will NEVER stay in the hands of good, competent people. Those people won't live forever, and the more the power is concentrated, the easier it is for an ambitious thug to take it.
                              Oh, I agree with you. Because if you let a dictator run everything, then he'll probably screw things up even more.

                              My point is that however people try to govern themselves, the prognosis isn't good.

                              Especially since scientists are working so hard to devise more and more ways to kill everyone.

                              We should probably try to figure out some way to stop the conflicts.

                              Where marijuana is concerned, maybe people should be told how much the prohibition of it is costing them, rather than that fact being swept under the rug.
                              Trey Strain
                              Guardian of the Universe
                              Last edited by Trey Strain; 09-09-2010, 03:27 PM.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X