Mexico Decriminalizes Small-Scale Drug Possession 640
Professor_Quail notes an AP story that begins, "Mexico enacted a controversial law Thursday decriminalizing possession of small amounts of marijuana, cocaine, heroin and other drugs while encouraging free government treatment for drug dependency. The law sets out maximum 'personal use' amounts for drugs, also including LSD and methamphetamine. People detained with those quantities will no longer face criminal prosecution when the law goes into effect Friday." An official in the attorney general's office said, "This is not legalization, this is regulating the issue and giving citizens greater legal certainty... for a practice that was already in place." In 2006, the US criticized a similar bill that had no provisions for mandatory treatment, and the then-president sent it back to Congress for reconsideration.
40mg of methampetamine? (Score:2, Informative)
Portugal has been doing this... (Score:5, Informative)
legalization (Score:3, Informative)
Legalization is necessary; our society simply can't keep paying for prosecuting and incarcerating non-violent drug users, or the criminal activity resulting from the drug trade. However, full legalization is going to be tough: both drug dealers and drug enforcement agencies (including the UN) have a strong financial interest in keeping drugs illegal. And the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs [wikipedia.org] makes it hard for any single nation to change the status quo. That's one of the reasons why it's been hard for any nation to legalize drugs.
Re:Gangs are the root. Legalization is the pestici (Score:3, Informative)
Both were easily obtained, legally.
Re:we need to end drug prohibition (Score:3, Informative)
You know what they called hemp clothing in the old days? Sackcloth. As in sackcloth and ashes. Yes, you can get decent clothing out of it, but try cotton of the same fibre quality level as those trendy hemp clothes (for instance fair trade organic cotton, it's usually ridiculously high fibre quality) and tell me there would be competition.
Hemp fibre would NOT kill cotton, any more than bloody terylene did. Lots of things you can blame cotton farmers for, banning cannabis isn't one of them.
Re:News for nerds? (Score:5, Informative)
As a fellow nerd I have to tell you that some critical parts of our computer technology these days was built with the help of these 'drugs', or more clearly psychedelics and more precisely LSD. See: http://open.salon.com/blog/hal_m/2009/07/09/lsd_inventor_hofmanns_letter_to_steve_jobs [salon.com] and http://heroux.blogspot.com/2006/03/this-is-your-computer-on-lsd.html [blogspot.com] for a couple of good starting points for you too look at.
What I hear from it's a great way to boost you way of analytic, mathematical and engineering way of thinking. Now, I'm not saying we should promote use of any of these substances, but I'm saying we should aknowledge them and use them in a controlled way for the benefit of human kind. Psychedelics can unlock huge potentials in human beings, why are we denying this still ? The native people of different regions of the world have known this for centuries. Too bad we are still being led by medical companies and other huge colloborations of humans who like their materialistic ways of lifes too much to really let the human race take off.
Ineffective dose of LSD (Score:3, Informative)
AP piece says 0.015 mg of LSD, or 15 ug, a ineffective dose of LSD. 60-100 ug is common for street doses. Perhaps the AP misread the law and its 150 ug, a more realistic number compared to the other amounts.
Re:It's about goddamn time (Score:1, Informative)
No way! That would require bringing our prison population levels down from 4% to something negligible. This is the USA. We can't have those levels of freedom here! What do you think this is, some kind of democracy?
No doubt Mexico achieves this admirable statistic by ensuring they house their criminals *outside* of prisons. These upstanding citizens use the freedom you've described to shoot police execution style, sometimes going north of the border for variety. What a country!
Re:Decriminalization in Light of the Drug War (Score:3, Informative)
You can certainly make those statements without being racist, but you do need to back it up. Example of such statements that arn't racist:
Beliefs as well as cultural factors may affect utilization of drug abuse treatment. Significant differences in rates of treatment entry have been documented among African Americans and Latinos compared to Whites in the United States (Lundgren et al., 2001; Shah et al., 2000). In a study of ethnic minorities in Los Angeles, Latino drug users were less likely than Anglo or African Americans to have sought drug treatment and were more likely than these groups to report a low perceived need for drug abuse treatment (Longshore et al., 1992).
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2196212 [nih.gov]
Re:Decriminalization in Light of the Drug War (Score:3, Informative)
Except that most of the profits (thought to be more than 75%) that the drug cartels make are not from narcotics, but from cannabis.
Do you have sources and stats for this? I'm seriously interested, because it's the first time I've heard that these same cartels are responsible.
From where I come from (albeit from personal experience) the majority of weed in circulation seems to come from 2 groups. Personal connosieurs that have decided that they may as well grow an entire basement full, and turn a dollar or two, if they're gonna go to the lengths of setting up a small grow room to perfect the grow, which can get pretty expensive when done right. A small subset of these people are those that carry stuff back from Canada and Europe. Then there are the Mexicans, who apparently have some larger scale farms, with lower quality dope, but mostly within the U.S., just secluded from settlements, and hopefully from choppers and planes looking for them.
So this is the first time that I've heard anyone say that the "cartels" (I'm assuming Mexican) make 75% of their profit from weed sold in the U.S. If this really is true, and has sources that are more than just someone's day dream, I'm interested in learning. It gives all the more power to the legalization argument.
Re:we need to end drug prohibition (Score:2, Informative)
Just because someone "does drugs" doesn't mean they chainsmoke spiffs and shoot up every day and smoke crack on weekends. Most of my friends that partake in such things (usually MDMA, LSD, shrooms, that sort of thing) do them once every month, some less often.
There are plenty of non addictive drugs that one can do without alerting anyone in the privacy of one's own home that don't significantly impact your life. You can never know who does and who does not do drugs, though I would place high likelihood on your neighbours not being drug dependant, it's entirely possible to be "reasonable" and take drugs every now and then just like it's possible to drink or smoke and still be socially acceptable in your world view.
Not all drugs require paraphernalia, not all drugs are addictive and not all drug users are obvious about such things.
Re:It's about goddamn time (Score:3, Informative)
Yes doubt. Doubt yourself.
US prison statistics show a systematic problem in the US. On average they have about 5x as much prisoners per capita than most other 'normal' places.
E.g. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_pri_per_cap-crime-prisoners-per-capita [nationmaster.com] (I didn't verify their source).
Re:Decriminalization in Light of the Drug War (Score:5, Informative)
The firepower the cartels wield is not smuggled in from the US. 87% of the firearms Mexico asks the ATF to locate, are traced to the US -- but they only request that sort of thing on a small percent of the firearms they seize, 10%-ish I believe. Basically, they only request it when they have reason to believe the guns came from the US.
The M16s? The grenades? Those aren't being smuggled across the border unless the government is doing it. They're not, incidentally, most those sorts of things are sold to the cartels from the Mexican army (yay for corruption!). AKs and other soviet weaponry obviously is a lot easier to find on black markets, and that's not smuggled from the US either.
When you're making the kind of money the cartels were, you're not going out and buying semi-autos or hunting rifles, you're buying military hardware. And you don't buy that sort of thing in the US.
Other than that, though, yep. Clearly has something to do with the violence that's been going on down there, whether or not it works I think depends on how splintered the cartels actually are. Honestly would not be surprised if only certain cartels were targetted -- it's happened before, but I believe that involved police and not the mexican miltary.
Re:Oh yeah, right (Score:5, Informative)
I believe that Switzerland has heroin injection sites. People with existing addictions can buy a dose of heroin at a reduced price and have it injected by a nurse. The clinics sell heroin on a sliding scale to eliminate the need to steal to pay for drugs. Because getting drugs from the government is cheaper and safer than on the street, drug dealers don't sell heroin.
In this situation, heroin is easier for addicts to get, but harder for new users to get. Because heroin users don't have to hide from the government, they are less afraid to seek treatment. The injection centers even offer referrals to treatment programs. I believe that overall heroin use is down since the program started.
If people were less uptight about drugs, we could do the same thing here. Unfortunately, a program to give free heroin to addicts wouldn't pass here. It doesn't matter that keeping addicts from robbing citizens to pay for their addictions is better for everyone.
Re:Decriminalization in Light of the Drug War (Score:2, Informative)
i am taking this off of one of the top results on google as to what percentage of people in the usa smoke weed and the source i chose says 15-20% which seems a bit on the low side compared to people i talk to however lets stick with the 15%... there are 304,059,724 residents of the usa according to google. i spend only $20 a week on low grade... 15% of 304,059,724 = 45608958, $20 a week for 52 weeks a year = $1040 ... some spend more than me some spend less but we'll just stick with the $20 a week figure on average... so to completely low ball it about $47433316320 ... so about 47 BILLION dollars on pot alone in the usa... lets say only 10% goes back to the original suppliers... that's still 4.7 billion on pot alone leaving our country a year when instead it could be 47 billion or so going directly into the governments pockets... for weed alone, a drug that does more good than harm, a drug that is less harmful than cigs and booze, a drug that actually helps cure ailments... instead we are spending 19 billion a year to try and stop drugs based on a 2003 figure. the amount has likely increased. we could be bringing in ANAL RAPING BUTT LOADS OF MONEY IN IF OUR GOVERNMENT SOLD THESE DRUGS INSTEAD. god bless the good ol' us of a!
Re:Oh yeah, right (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Portugal has been doing this... (Score:3, Informative)
He might not have, but it's implied. Are you saying the courts can make this distinction?
Firstly, it's not up to courts. Since possession of drugs for personal use was decriminalised, the courts are no longer prosecuting people for this crime. Instead, people with large quantities for personal possession go to a "dissuasion commission panel" rather than court. They can rely on medical evidence and amount of drugs on person to decide appropriate response (possibly a fine, possibly an offer of treatment). Treatment is not mandatory.
The treatment option is an alternative to a fine for possession of drugs. I had heard that for minor crimes that wouldn't go to court anyway (e..g prostitution) it can be offered as well, but I can't find a reference for that at the moment. The rest of the details are in:
TIME magazine: Drugs in Portugal: Did Decriminalization Work? [time.com]
BBC News: How Portugal treats drug addicts [bbc.co.uk]
"It's not my fault I have a disease! The devil drugs made me do it!"
A predictable response, but consider that if a person is clinically addicted to certain drugs, then not having those drugs regularly is highly likely to cause death. In that sense, there is some truth to the reasoning that "the drugs made me do it" - the drugs are necessary to avoid death, and if the person were not addicted, then the drugs would not be necessary. Consider the hypothetical scenario where you hold in your hand a button that when pressed will electrocute and kill another innocent human. If you don't press the button within 60 seconds, you will be electrocuted and killed. If you press the button, you will be released. Your action in pressing the button is murder of an innocent person, regardless of the motive. So which do you choose - to commit the crime or murder, or to be murdered? It's an old philosophical question, but one that can easily be extended to this scenario (obviously murder is an extreme example, substitute with the more likely crimes of prostitution or theft as appropriate).
Re:Decriminalization in Light of the Drug War (Score:2, Informative)
You haven't tried buying prescription drugs without insurance recently, have you? Hint: You can't. Or well, you can, but it costs so much that someone who cannot afford insurance is going to have trouble affording them.
I don't know what country you are are in, but in the USA a very large number of commonly prescribed drugs are available for very relatively cheap due to Wal-mart's $4 prescription plan and the fall-out effects on the rest of the market. There still are plenty of expensive drugs, but they are patented.
No one's going to be able to patent cocaine, heroin, pcp, meth, etc.
Re:It's about goddamn time (Score:5, Informative)
bolsters the notion that keeping 1 in 25 Americans in prison
That's 1 in 100 adults [washingtonpost.com], or about 1 in 130 Americans. Not that this is a good number, but it's not nearly so high as 1 in 25.
Re:Decriminalization in Light of the Drug War (Score:4, Informative)
>Not all "soft" drug users are addicts, but pretty much anyone doing anything but marijuana are addicts as most recreational drugs are almost as addictive as nicotine.
No, not really. Most drug users, even heroin users [reason.com], are casual users. For every tweeked out meth head, there are 10 people that just use it occasionally. I know quite a few people who have used all sorts of drugs without ever developing a problem. Quoting the linked article:
"A 1976 study by the drug researchers Leon G. Hunt and Carl D. Chambers estimated there were 3 or 4 million heroin users in the United States, perhaps 10 percent of them addicts. "Of all active heroin users," Hunt and Chambers wrote, "a large majority are not addicts: they are not physically or socially dysfunctional; they are not daily users and they do not seem to require treatment." A 1994 study based on data from the National Comorbidity Survey estimated that 23 percent of heroin users ever experience substance dependence.
The comparable rate for alcohol in that study was 15 percent, which seems to support the idea that heroin is more addictive: A larger percentage of the people who try it become heavy users, even though it's harder to get. At the same time, the fact that using heroin is illegal, expensive, risky, inconvenient, and almost universally condemned means that the people who nevertheless choose to do it repeatedly will tend to differ from people who choose to drink. They will be especially attracted to heroin's effects, the associated lifestyle, or both. In other words, heroin users are a self-selected group, less representative of the general population than alcohol users are, and they may be more inclined from the outset to form strong attachments to the drug."
You're a dumbass (Score:1, Informative)
You're a dumbass.
The GP has basically done a cost-benefit analysis of using vs. not using the drugs under the current legal system, and stated that were the legal system to change, a new cost-benefit analysis might yield different results for both himself and a significant portion of the population.
Honestly, you're trying to compare this reasoning to that made by an emotionally-stunted child?
W T F
Take your amateur psychoanalysis somewhere else.
Re:we need to end drug prohibition (Score:3, Informative)
The concept underlying "gaydar" applies much more broadly than to just gay people. Humans naturally broadcast extremely subtle, ambiguous social signals indicating their membership in whichever subculture(s) they belong to, often through the use of word choice or references to common subcultural touchstones. Because each signal is ambiguous, they individually mean nothing and are normally tuned out as noise by non-members. However, a person who shares membership in one or more subcultures will spot the ambiguous signals and wonder, "Huh, I wonder if X is also a member of Y group". The received signal will prime them to look for more signals of the same kind, and cause them to semi-subconsciously broadcast return signals. If they see more signals in response, a feedback loop forms as they become increasingly certain, and eventually there's an unspoken knowledge by both parties that each knows the other knows that both are members of the subculture. At that point, they start a conversation.
This is an extremely broad human behavior, and applies to almost all subcultures, no matter how trivial: from ones as secretive as illegal drug users and 19th-century gay men, to ones as openly-declarable as churchgoers and swing music enthusiasts. The point at which a conversation is held depends on the risk and consequences of reading the signals incorrectly: members of more mainstream, well-known subcultures will start a conversation with each other more quickly, because the odds are good and the consequences are few. But all subcultures do it; even an enthusiast of something completely non-offensive, like crochet [wikipedia.org], won't start a conversation with a random acquaintance about crochet without first seeing a hint or two that the acquaintance actually has a crochet interest. The minimum consequence of being wrong is wasting the other person's time, which is rude and thus a social negative.
Re:It's about goddamn time (Score:3, Informative)
I'd like to know why, exactly, using ("possessingh" for he pedants) pot is a crime. Potheads aren't violent or dangerous like niccotine addicts are when deprived of their drug, nor like alcoholics often are when under the influence of theirs. You can die from alcohol withdrawal, you can die from an alcohol overdose, but not marijuana. Tobacco kills almost all of its users, pot never killed anyone.
We know why alcohol is legal -- they tried prohobition and it was a dismal failure. Seems that all prohibitions are disnal failures.
Re:Decriminalization in Light of the Drug War (Score:3, Informative)
When I was stationed in Thailand in the USAF in 1974, there were three groups (with some overlap, of course) -- the white first termers, who mostly smoked the killer Thai stick, the black first termers, who smoked "rails" (Kool cigarettes with the filter split down the middle and half discarded, half of the tobacco shaken out making it loose, then dipped in the 99% pure heroin powder and smoked). The career men were almost 100% alcoholics who lived at the NCO club when they were off duty.
I ran across a few of the black guys I'd known in Thailand after coming back to the US. Every single one smoked cigarettes, even if he'd started the habit smoking rails, and not a single one was still using heroin.
Unscientific I know, but that tells me cigarettes are more addictive than heroin.