Mexico to legalize narcotics

Rob Lister

Unregistered
R
Joined
Apr 1, 2004
Messages
8,504
pot, coke, pretty much everything.

Fox said willing to sign bill

Just heard via radio-link.

Any data?

If so, let me know.

This should be interesting.
 
from Reuters, basically decriminalizing personal use posession quantities which is more or less done in some other countries as well.

http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=oddlyEnoughNews&storyID=2006-04-28T181012Z_01_N281836_RTRIDST_0_OUKOE-UK-MEXICO-DRUGS.XML&archived=False

clear.gif

MEXICO CITY (Reuters) - Possessing marijuana, cocaine and even heroin will no longer be a crime in Mexico if the drugs are carried in small amounts for personal use, under legislation passed by the Mexican Congress.

The measure given final passage by senators late on Thursday allows police to focus on their battle against major drug dealers, the government says, 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. The measure was approved earlier by the lower house.

Under the legislation, police will not penalise 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.......
Click to expand...

more at above and related links
 
Last edited:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060428...uRvaA8F;_ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA--

Mexico's Congress approved a bill Friday that would legalize drug possession for personal use — decriminalizing the carrying of small amounts of marijuana, cocaine and even heroin.
Click to expand...

The bill legalizes possession of small amounts of heroin, cocaine, ecstasy and marijuana.

"No charges will be brought against ... addicts or consumers who are found in possession of any narcotic for personal use," the bill reads.
Click to expand...

I'm a mere monkey, but isn't there a hell of a difference between pot and heroin? And ecstasy?! Great Walrus Pancakes! Ecstasy is damn bad stuff! Even making it is horribly dangerous.

eta: Damn! Beaten to it. His article's more detailed.
 
Yet another reason to construct the impenetrable border fence. To keep gringos out of Mexico?
 
TragicMonkey said:
Oh, lordy. Does this mean we'll have American "drug tourists" going to Mexico?
Click to expand...

We already do. Mexican pharmacists are notorious for filling false perscriptions. Now they've jumped from a goody bag to a veritable cornucopia.
 
bob_kark said:
We already do. Mexican pharmacists are notorious for filling false perscriptions. Now they've jumped from a goody bag to a veritable cornucopia.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily false perscriptions. Many pharmaceuticals don't seem to require any perscription there. My experience only.
 
Last edited:
TragicMonkey said:
Anecdotal, so it doesn't count, of course. But I've met people.
Click to expand...

Then it really doesn't count.

I've heard talking heads proclaiming it's harm, but I'm never seen a study that backs it up. I've also heard [more rationally put] arguments that there is little or no evidence either way if you negate the probability of getting punched in the nose for being obnoxious...which you will be if under its influence (I'm met people too).

I've not seen the studies.

I'm open but my [un]considered opinion is that it is an unknown.

I've got teenage kids also, and if I were to find that any of them were indulging, there would be hell in the Lister house.

See how that works?
 
what i dont understand is who sells the stuff? it looks like this bill just allows you to possess a little, but it is illegal to deal it...doesnt this sound insane? i mean i personally would entertain a measure in a maerica to legalize some drugs and deal with it basically like tobacco and alcohol, but here is is more like a don't ask, dont tell situation...they know they got the stuff illegally, but they arent gonna bother arresting you
 
The more I think about this, the stupider it sounds. Hell, isn't Fox supposed to be promoting Mexico-to-US immigration? Why the hell would we welcome an influx of people who have a taste for hard drugs? This is madness.
 
gfunkusarelius said:
what i dont understand is who sells the stuff? it looks like this bill just allows you to possess a little, but it is illegal to deal it...doesnt this sound insane? i mean i personally would entertain a measure in a maerica to legalize some drugs and deal with it basically like tobacco and alcohol, but here is is more like a don't ask, dont tell situation...they know they got the stuff illegally, but they arent gonna bother arresting you
Click to expand...
it sounds like it would still be illegal to posses these drugs, but there will be no criminal penalty for possession of small amounts, the idea is that it frees up police time to crack down on the dealers, and it doesn't criminalize large sections of otherwise law abiding society. The government is not approving of drug taking, it is just refocusing it law enforcement actions.
 
gfunkusarelius said:
what i dont understand is who sells the stuff? it looks like this bill just allows you to possess a little, but it is illegal to deal it...doesnt this sound insane?
Click to expand...

yes, insane. but look for the method to the madness.

Consider supply (few) and demand (many)

The cost of possessing it (demand side) lessens while the cost of distributing it (supply side) remains the same.

What does this do to the S/D curve? Typically, more people will want it so there will be more demand, and thus more [illegal]suppliers.

But here there is another variable at play: the economic cost of arresting the many caught that simply 'possess'...not to mention the economic impact it will have on tourism.

I, for one, have always wanted to visit Denmark.
 
Rob Lister said:
The cost of possessing it (demand side) lessens while the cost of distributing it (supply side) remains the same.
Click to expand...
In theory, the cost of supply increases, as resources are switched too tackling dealers instead of users. I have no idea how far the theory holds true.
 
brodski said:
In theory, the cost of supply increases, as resources are switched too tackling dealers instead of users. I have no idea how far the theory holds true.
Click to expand...

It sounds logically correct. Reality is a different equation.

I doubt there will be much more enforcement, at least in the short term.

It's complicated.
 
Rob Lister said:
It sounds logically correct. Reality is a different equation.

I doubt there will be much more enforcement, at least in the short term.

It's complicated.
Click to expand...
If the Home office in the UK is to be believed, the relaxation of the laws on possession of cannabis lead to an increase in enforcement against dealers of all drugs. But it's a little to early to tell.
 
But if the intent is to find a way for the government to not give a damn either way, then the equation changes a bit. If the intent is to increase economic input from the "legal" possession of such products, then...what?

I donno.

Toursim is a major, major Mexican product.
[illegal] drugs are a major, major Mexican product.

This is a tough one but I gotta think they've thought this out and have arrived at the correct [economic] conclusion...at least in the short-medium term.

It's not as if they actually every cared about the northward-bound supply side anyway.

ETA: I take that back: they care very much that the northward-bound supply side stays intact.
 
Last edited:
Rob Lister said:
Toursim is a major, major Mexican product.
[illegal] drugs are a major, major Mexican product.

This is a tough one but I gotta think they've thought this out and have arrived at the correct [economic] conclusion...at least in the short-medium term.
Click to expand...

But that cuts both ways. The kind of tourist who will go to Mexico for drugs isn't the kind of tourist who goes there to stay in luxury hotels and fling money around. An increase in the former will cause a decrease in the latter, and who's going to spend more money while there?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom