Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Mexico Legalizing Possession of Drugs for Personal Consumption

TL DRTL DR Not at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered User regular
edited May 2009 in Debate and/or Discourse
Original article en Espanol
Senate Approves drugs in personal dosage law to combat drug trafficking

The Senate approved the opinion in committees to combat drug trafficking, to legalize the consumption of up to 5 grams of marijuana without penalty.
Mexico City .- This evening the Senate approved the opinion of the legislative initiative to combat drug trafficking, which allows the carrying of small doses of drugs, marijuana, cocaine and crystal, among others.

The opinion is on technical adjustments and will be brought to discussion before the plenary on Tuesday, with the goal that neither drug addicts nor consumers are criminalized for possession psychotropic drugs up to to a certain amount.

For a consumer, when they were stopped twice until they are invited to attend care centers. For the third time, they were forced to go to a rehabilitation center. The law preserves administrative ban on consumption in public places.

"Well, for marijuana, which was what I was concerned, and since nobody buys clean but full of pieces of wood, seeds, etc.., Five grams is what the Court said," said Senator Pablo Gomez of the PRD.

Together, municipalities, state and federation should fight crime. But when it comes to organized crime, ie, when 3 or more individuals involved, only the Federation intervenes.

So according to the graph on the article's page, the cutoff is now 5 grams of pot, 2 grams opium, 50mg heroin, .5 grams cocaine, LSD 1500 nanograms (about ten doses), 40 mg of methamphetamine and MDA (I assume they mean ecstasy, MDMA) or 200mg in tablet form. Talk about odd numbers.

There has been speculation (forum speculation, anyway) that the flu is being used as a cover to push through this otherwise controversial legislation.

Possible benefits:
-Less addicts and casual drug users that police have to deal with
-Hopefully less stigma about seeking treatment
-Hopefully a decrease in crime will lead other countries to view drug use and abuse as a public health problem, rather than a criminal one

Possible problems:
-I have a hard time believing that a Mexican police station would have the capability to determine the concentration of LSD in any form, be it liquid or in blotter paper, gel tabs, etc. Hundreds of doses of LSD could fit in a single gelcap, for instance, or a single dose could be dissolved into a gram of filler for transport.
-This could backfire. American law enforcement agencies have a strong interest in this ending badly for Mexico. Drug crime could escalate for any number of reasons (the cartels want to push against legalization, etc) and the project would be a gigantic step backwards for sensible drug policy.

Discuss!

If someone wants to help with a more accurate translation of the article, that would be great. I've cleaned up a few bits, but my Spanish isn't that great. Also, more sources / articles with the full text of the bill would be fantastic.

TL DR on
«1

Posts

  • jeddy leejeddy lee Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Wow... are more people not talking about this? This seems huge...

    jeddy lee on
    Backlog Challenge: 0%
    0/8

    PS2
    FF X replay

    PS3
    God of War 1&2 HD
    Rachet and Clank Future
    MGS 4
    Prince of Persia

    360
    Bayonetta
    Fable 3

    DS
    FF: 4 heroes of light
  • KyouguKyougu Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    The article mentions that if someone is caught twice with the aformentioned amount they'll be "invited" to a rehab center. The third time it will be required.

    So it's no so much as legalizing it as make it less serious. The article is really short though, so there may be more.

    Kyougu on
  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades 地獄のようにかわいい あなたは嫉妬深いかRegistered User regular
    edited April 2009
    No! This can not happen.

    Once people see that society doesn't buckle when people are allowed personal freedom over their body, how will up-and-coming politicians look tough on crime?!

    And Mexico will actually have to start prosecuting people for actual crimes instead of potential crimes we "knew" they would commit if they took drugs! Noooooo!

    joshofalltrades on
    ジェイムズ・ブラウンの好きな色は何ですか?
    青!
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited April 2009
    It's decriminalization, not legalization.

    And now Mexico has a more progressive drug policy than the US. That's somehow kind of sad.

    ElJeffe on
    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • TL DRTL DR Not at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Kyougu wrote: »
    The article mentions that if someone is caught twice with the aformentioned amount they'll be "invited" to a rehab center. The third time it will be required.

    So it's no so much as legalizing it as make it less serious. The article is really short though, so there may be more.

    So we're seeing that this is now a health matter, and not a criminal one. Also I am unsure whether these people can be detained for possession only or if this is if they have drugs while committing a crime.

    TL DR on
  • TL DRTL DR Not at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered User regular
    edited April 2009
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    It's decriminalization, not legalization.

    And now Mexico has a more progressive drug policy than the US. That's somehow kind of sad.
    El Senado aprobó en comisiones el dictamen de combate al narcomenudeo, que legaliza el consumo de hasta 5 gramos de mariguana, sin penalización.
    legalize the consumption of up to 5 grams of marijuana without penalty.

    ?

    TL DR on
  • Zen VulgarityZen Vulgarity What a lovely day for tea Secret British ThreadRegistered User regular
    edited April 2009
    No. It's still illegal for you to have it up to a certain point.

    It's not all quantities being legal to be bought and sold on a market, just that you can have a certain amount on your person.

    Zen Vulgarity on
    oVSbgTI.png For more artwork like this, check out Jakub Rozalski's imgur
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited April 2009
    I interpreted it as if you're caught with any amount of drugs, you're "invited" to attend a rehab center, and after three incidents you're required to go. That's not how perfectly legal substances are handled.

    Decriminalization basically means that you can't get in trouble for doing it, but you're still not supposed to.

    ElJeffe on
    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • TL DRTL DR Not at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered User regular
    edited April 2009
    No. It's still illegal for you to have it up to a certain point.

    It's not all quantities being legal to be bought and sold on a market, just that you can have a certain amount on your person.

    I think the distinction here is blurry and ultimately inconsequential. A bottle of beer is decriminalized. It is legal for me to possess. /shrug

    edit: Ok, Jeffe's point makes sense pending possible clarification of the law.

    TL DR on
  • redxredx I(x)=2(x)+1 whole numbersRegistered User regular
    edited April 2009
    No tax revenue.
    No competition between cartels and legal drug manufactures.
    No avenue to legitimacy, and less violent behavior, for those involved in drug trafficking.
    Nothing accomplished with regard to drugs, guns and money flowing into and through the country.

    I don't really like it. I like legalization, regulation and taxation, but this halfhearted decriminalization stuff seems to miss the point. It's good, I guess, that they will save money on enforcement and jail. That can be put to better purposes and it will make the lives of recreational drug users in mexico a bit better. It might even bring in some money from narco-tourists, though they will still have to deal with illicit street level dealers rather than safe 'coffee' houses.

    I think they tried to do this last year, and after passing though their legislature, it was vetoed. I don't read Spanish and haven't got around to watching Mr. Garcia goes to Mexico City, so I don't know how likely that is this time around.

    redx on
    This machine kills threads.
  • Witch_Hunter_84Witch_Hunter_84 Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    They're just trying to cut off the cartels at the knees and this is the best way to do it. I never thought I'd say it, but we could learn a lot from Mexico.

    If they really wanted to hammer the cartels into submission, they would legalize and federally regulate it.

    Witch_Hunter_84 on
    If you can't beat them, arrange to have them beaten in your presence.
  • Romero ZombieRomero Zombie Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    So are the Mexican police going to carry around scales to determine how much drugs these guys have on them?

    Most heroin addicts I know don't usually carry around a large quantity of heroin...usually their balloon and immediately shoot up after that. I don't see much changing there

    I have no idea how to measure amounts of LSD on a stamp or a pill and imagine it is a huge pain in the ass

    Meth....IMO is just as bad, if not worse than heroin. I haven't ever met anyone who had a 'controlled' meth habit and it hasn't completely ruined their life.


    Marijuana doesn't really bother me as much as the others do. If it were legal, I would smoke it every now and then myself. Legalizing possession of small quantities of drugs won't solve any problems

    Romero Zombie on
    steam_sig.png
  • TL DRTL DR Not at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered User regular
    edited April 2009
    They're just trying to cut off the cartels at the knees and this is the best way to do it. I never thought I'd say it, but we could learn a lot from Mexico.

    If they really wanted to hammer the cartels into submission, they would legalize and federally regulate it.

    Thing is, if all that is legal is personal possession then the money still goes to the cartel.

    TL DR on
  • redxredx I(x)=2(x)+1 whole numbersRegistered User regular
    edited April 2009
    They're just trying to cut off the cartels at the knees and this is the best way to do it. I never thought I'd say it, but we could learn a lot from Mexico.

    If they really wanted to hammer the cartels into submission, they would legalize and federally regulate it.

    How does what they are doing affect the cartels in any way other than getting rid of a disincentive for their customers?

    redx on
    This machine kills threads.
  • DmanDman Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Yeah I'm not sure what exactly this means, I don't think we should jump to conclusions.

    Say speeding used to have a 3 year prison sentence and then we changed it to how it is now (fine and maybe points off your licence), we could say that we Decriminalized Speeding, up to certain speeds at which point you get charged with reckless endangering or something.

    Similarly, using marijuana could be decriminalized in Mexico. Doesn't mean there are no penalties, just no criminal charges unless you have over a certain amount, then they charge you with possession or trafficking.

    Dman on
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    I agree with redx. It's better than nothing, and I honestly mean that, but it could still stand some major improvement.

    Quid on
  • Romero ZombieRomero Zombie Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Is the government or someone approved by them manufacturing these drugs for legal sale? Or are they saying you can buy from the cartel still and it's legal...as long as it is x amount ?

    Romero Zombie on
    steam_sig.png
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    So are the Mexican police going to carry around scales to determine how much drugs these guys have on them?
    I think it's more an effort to deal with the reality that arresting drug users doesn't do much and this pretty much forces police to focus on dealers where it would be rather obvious of they had more than a few grams.

    Quid on
  • TL DRTL DR Not at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered User regular
    edited April 2009
    All we really have is the one article. Everything else I've been able to google has been from the previous attempt in 2006

    TL DR on
  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades 地獄のようにかわいい あなたは嫉妬深いかRegistered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Which is good, but it's still not ideal. At least they're taking steps in the right direction, as opposed to what we're doing here.

    joshofalltrades on
    ジェイムズ・ブラウンの好きな色は何ですか?
    青!
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Is the government or someone approved by them manufacturing these drugs for legal sale? Or are they saying you can buy from the cartel still and it's legal...as long as it is x amount ?
    Article only says possession so I'd imagine sale and purchasing is still illegal.

    Quid on
  • [Tycho?][Tycho?] Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    I don't know if this will help things in Mexico or not.

    One big problem is that Mexico is largely a condiut for drugs to pass into the US. Thats how most of the drug gangs make their money, not locally. Decriminalization/legalization will have little effect on exports to the US, and thats the business that is mostly responsible for the violence.

    The point of decriminalization is to not make average people into criminals for doing what they want.
    The point of legalization is to let regular capitalism take the bite out of organized crime; if you're able to manufacture and sell the drug legally, its price plummets, and so does the incentive for organized crime to sell it.

    This smells more like a desperation move than a concerted attempt to liberalize their drug laws. They're basically fighting a civil war with drug cartels, and they're throwing in the towel. I don't think this is a bad move, but I also don't see it solving their current problems.

    [Tycho?] on
    mvaYcgc.jpg
  • TL DRTL DR Not at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered User regular
    edited April 2009
    "Throwing in the towel" would involve less enforcement against the cartels, which is not what this is. This is a somewhat shortsighted attempt to redirect law enforcement's focus off of the smaller fish.

    The cartels do not want drugs legal in any way.

    TL DR on
  • Romero ZombieRomero Zombie Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    [Tycho?] wrote: »
    I don't know if this will help things in Mexico or not.

    One big problem is that Mexico is largely a condiut for drugs to pass into the US. Thats how most of the drug gangs make their money, not locally. Decriminalization/legalization will have little effect on exports to the US, and thats the business that is mostly responsible for the violence.

    The point of decriminalization is to not make average people into criminals for doing what they want.
    The point of legalization is to let regular capitalism take the bite out of organized crime; if you're able to manufacture and sell the drug legally, its price plummets, and so does the incentive for organized crime to sell it.

    This smells more like a desperation move than a concerted attempt to liberalize their drug laws. They're basically fighting a civil war with drug cartels, and they're throwing in the towel. I don't think this is a bad move, but I also don't see it solving their current problems.

    These seems like a bandaid more than anything else. They are trying to do something to combat the cartel and this was the best they could come up with? If anything, this seems to me the cartel would make more money in this situation as people know they can't get popped for carrying a certain amount on them now and will be more prone to buying their drugs.

    Romero Zombie on
    steam_sig.png
  • CantidoCantido Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    I need to buy stock in Marlboro...

    Cantido on
    3DS Friendcode 5413-1311-3767
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Yeah, I don't really see this hurting cartels too much outside of maybe redirecting funds towards combating them. Unless they also legalize the sale of 5g or less of marijuana cartels are still going to be necessary.

    Edit: Shit, growing too I would imagine.

    Quid on
  • HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    While this is a good thing in of itself, it doesn't seem to help the cartel problem very much.

    HamHamJ on
    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • Joe Camacho MKIIJoe Camacho MKII Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Mexican Lawyer here, (Working towards my professional cell to be exact, so I'm more of an attorney right now). And I must say I disagree with this reform, at least with the amounts fixed as "user consumption".

    Hell, I actually made a presentation on one of my last classes regarding this reform.

    To be honest, this isn't something "new" per se on the mexican legal system, possesion and consumption of drugs hasn't been a crime for a while in Mexico (I can't say it has never been, I don't know the evolution of our criminal code since it's conception), what is new is the way to determine that the drugs are for personal consumption and not for sale.

    Drug Addiction has always been a health matter in México, it's the trafficking and selling of drugs what is a criminal matter, using or consuming drugs is NOT a felony, misdemeanor or crime in México. Just about every other activity related to it is a crime, though.

    Based on the old law, in order to consider marihuana (I'll stick with it because it's the one I based my presentation on) to be for personal used it had to be less than 250 grams, and the person had to submit him or herself to a legal medical diagnosis in order for the Federal Public Ministry Agent (like a district attorney), if the tests were positive and according to the circunstances of the person (first arrest, economic situation, etc.) he was released.

    Sadly, the system was abused, I was told of a case in which a bus filled with people, each of them had a pack of 249 grams of marihuana, and without being able to connect the incident, they were all released (I don't have any concrete evidence of this, but I couldn't see why it wouldn't have happened.) Also, it was also abused by bribing either the Legal Medical Doctor or the PM Agent in order to determine the suspects as addicts even if they wouldn't meet the requirements.

    So they reduced the amount to 5 grams, which seriously, using a scale, isn't a bit more or less the amount of a common marihuana cigarrete, and with the NEW law, if someone has 5.1 grams, he won't be able to use the benefits the system offers, which are a good thing (Rehab, not going directly to prison, etc), but with such small amount, why even bother.

    In my opinion, they should regulate ALL of the activity, or NONE regarding marihuana. It's quite stupid to be able to smoke it, but not be able to sell it, buy it, grow it, transport it, etc. I mean, you must be able to get it from SOMEWHERE, and it's stupid that you need to commit a federal crime to do a legal activity.

    There is a political party at the legislative assembly named "Partido Social Demócrata" which is looking for a way to regulate marihuana in such a way, that people will be allowed to grow one or two plants at home, for personal consumption, now THAT sounds like a plan to me.

    Joe Camacho MKII on
    steam_sig.png I edit my posts a lot.
  • HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Mexican Lawyer here, (Working towards my professional cell to be exact, so I'm more of an attorney right now). And I must say I disagree with this reform, at least with the amounts fixed as "user consumption".

    Hell, I actually made a presentation on one of my last classes regarding this reform.

    To be honest, this isn't something "new" per se on the mexican legal system, possesion and consumption of drugs hasn't been a crime for a while in Mexico (I can't say it has never been, I don't know the evolution of our criminal code since it's conception), what is new is the way to determine that the drugs are for personal consumption and not for sale.

    Drug Addiction has always been a health matter in México, it's the trafficking and selling of drugs what is a criminal matter, using or consuming drugs is NOT a felony, misdemeanor or crime in México. Just about every other activity related to it is a crime, though.

    Based on the old law, in order to consider marihuana (I'll stick with it because it's the one I based my presentation on) to be for personal used it had to be less than 250 grams, and the person had to submit him or herself to a legal medical diagnosis in order for the Federal Public Ministry Agent (like a district attorney), if the tests were positive and according to the circunstances of the person (first arrest, economic situation, etc.) he was released.

    Sadly, the system was abused, I was told of a case in which a bus filled with people, each of them had a pack of 249 grams of marihuana, and without being able to connect the incident, they were all released (I don't have any concrete evidence of this, but I couldn't see why it wouldn't have happened.) Also, it was also abused by bribing either the Legal Medical Doctor or the PM Agent in order to determine the suspects as addicts even if they wouldn't meet the requirements.

    So they reduced the amount to 5 grams, which seriously, using a scale, isn't a bit more or less the amount of a common marihuana cigarrete, and with the NEW law, if someone has 5.1 grams, he won't be able to use the benefits the system offers, which are a good thing (Rehab, not going directly to prison, etc), but with such small amount, why even bother.

    In my opinion, they should regulate ALL of the activity, or NONE regarding marihuana. It's quite stupid to be able to smoke it, but not be able to sell it, buy it, grow it, transport it, etc. I mean, you must be able to get it from SOMEWHERE, and it's stupid that you need to commit a federal crime to do a legal activity.

    There is a political party at the legislative assembly named "Partido Social Demócrata" which is looking for a way to regulate marihuana in such a way, that people will be allowed to grow one or two plants at home, for personal consumption, now THAT sounds like a plan to me.

    That... what... o_O

    EDIT: So the lesson here is, don't asume things about laws in other countries.

    HamHamJ on
    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • Fleck0Fleck0 Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    So they reduced the amount to 5 grams, which seriously, using a scale, isn't a bit more or less the amount of a common marihuana cigarrete, and with the NEW law, if someone has 5.1 grams, he won't be able to use the benefits the system offers, which are a good thing (Rehab, not going directly to prison, etc), but with such small amount, why even bother.

    5 grams is one big-ass "marihuana cigarrete"

    Fleck0 on
    steam_sig.png
  • mystikspyralmystikspyral Registered User
    edited April 2009
    Fleck0 wrote: »
    So they reduced the amount to 5 grams, which seriously, using a scale, isn't a bit more or less the amount of a common marihuana cigarrete, and with the NEW law, if someone has 5.1 grams, he won't be able to use the benefits the system offers, which are a good thing (Rehab, not going directly to prison, etc), but with such small amount, why even bother.

    5 grams is one big-ass "marihuana cigarrete"

    Yeah, back when I was a smoker you could easily make at least two joints out of a gram... 5 grams will almost make you a blunt...

    mystikspyral on
    "When life gives you lemons, just say 'Fuck the lemons,' and bail" :rotate:
  • Joe Camacho MKIIJoe Camacho MKII Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Fleck0 wrote: »
    So they reduced the amount to 5 grams, which seriously, using a scale, isn't a bit more or less the amount of a common marihuana cigarrete, and with the NEW law, if someone has 5.1 grams, he won't be able to use the benefits the system offers, which are a good thing (Rehab, not going directly to prison, etc), but with such small amount, why even bother.

    5 grams is one big-ass "marihuana cigarrete"

    Yeah, back when I was a smoker you could easily make at least two joints out of a gram... 5 grams will almost make you a blunt...

    Yeah.. About that I must say I think I got my numbers wrong, I'm sorry, it wasn't one, but a couple of cigarretes, which still far from "drugdealing" amount stand point, serves me right for asking my smoking friends, instead of searching for one myself.

    In a way, the reform tries to attack drug sales, but the problem with having such a small quantity, it that will surely trap more addicts than drug dealers, because usually smokers carry more from what I was able to tell and were told, addicts that won't be able to receive any benefits because it's stated by law that they must have LESS than 5 grs on them to receive the benefits, there is no way to judge each case circunstances separately.

    Edit.- With the new legislation, if someone gets caught with 5.1 grams or more, he will be labeled as a drugdealer and won't received the benefits of the health system to counter drug addiction, a really dangerous regulation.

    Joe Camacho MKII on
    steam_sig.png I edit my posts a lot.
  • TL DRTL DR Not at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Fleck0 wrote: »
    So they reduced the amount to 5 grams, which seriously, using a scale, isn't a bit more or less the amount of a common marihuana cigarrete, and with the NEW law, if someone has 5.1 grams, he won't be able to use the benefits the system offers, which are a good thing (Rehab, not going directly to prison, etc), but with such small amount, why even bother.

    5 grams is one big-ass "marihuana cigarrete"

    Yeah, back when I was a smoker you could easily make at least two joints out of a gram... 5 grams will almost make you a blunt...

    Yeah.. About that I must say I think I got my numbers wrong, I'm sorry, it wasn't one, but a couple of cigarretes, which still far from "drugdealing" amount stand point, serves me right for asking my smoking friends, instead of searching for one myself.

    In a way, the reform tries to attack drug sales, but the problem with having such a small quantity, it that will surely trap more addicts than drug dealers, because usually smokers carry more from what I was able to tell and were told, addicts that won't be able to receive any benefits because it's stated by law that they must have LESS than 5 grs on them to receive the benefits, there is no way to judge each case circunstances separately.

    Edit.- With the new legislation, if someone gets caught with 5.1 grams or more, he will be labeled as a drugdealer and won't received the benefits of the health system to counter drug addiction, a really dangerous regulation.

    Thanks for your input! If you could take a look at the translation in the OP and let me know if there's anything that could be clearer (assuming as a future Mexican lawyer you speak Spanish), that would be a great help.

    I was thinking about that earlier; 50mg of heroin is perhaps 5 doses for a person without tolerance, but for a true addict it could be as little as one or two (dosages gathered from Erowid.org). This issue, coupled with the fact that drug users will still be buying through the cartels, is making me less enthusiastic about the proposition.

    TL DR on
  • Joe Camacho MKIIJoe Camacho MKII Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Fleck0 wrote: »
    So they reduced the amount to 5 grams, which seriously, using a scale, isn't a bit more or less the amount of a common marihuana cigarrete, and with the NEW law, if someone has 5.1 grams, he won't be able to use the benefits the system offers, which are a good thing (Rehab, not going directly to prison, etc), but with such small amount, why even bother.

    5 grams is one big-ass "marihuana cigarrete"

    Yeah, back when I was a smoker you could easily make at least two joints out of a gram... 5 grams will almost make you a blunt...

    Yeah.. About that I must say I think I got my numbers wrong, I'm sorry, it wasn't one, but a couple of cigarretes, which still far from "drugdealing" amount stand point, serves me right for asking my smoking friends, instead of searching for one myself.

    In a way, the reform tries to attack drug sales, but the problem with having such a small quantity, it that will surely trap more addicts than drug dealers, because usually smokers carry more from what I was able to tell and were told, addicts that won't be able to receive any benefits because it's stated by law that they must have LESS than 5 grs on them to receive the benefits, there is no way to judge each case circunstances separately.

    Edit.- With the new legislation, if someone gets caught with 5.1 grams or more, he will be labeled as a drugdealer and won't received the benefits of the health system to counter drug addiction, a really dangerous regulation.

    Thanks for your input! If you could take a look at the translation in the OP and let me know if there's anything that could be clearer (assuming as a future Mexican lawyer you speak Spanish), that would be a great help.

    I was thinking about that earlier; 50mg of heroin is perhaps 5 doses for a person without tolerance, but for a true addict it could be as little as one or two (dosages gathered from Erowid.org). This issue, coupled with the fact that drug users will still be buying through the cartels, is making me less enthusiastic about the proposition.

    Well, to be honest, I don't find anything wrong with your translation other than tense and grammar, which isn't that big of an issue. Now, regarding the issue discussed in this thread, the only thing that I find weird is the last paragraph, regarding concurrence, which explains the jurisdiction of each of the government powers in México, regarding fighting drugdealing, all three powers must join together and fight it, but regarding "delincuencia organizada" (Organized crime) a crime which main characteristic is that it's commited by 3 or more people, which is usually the crime drugdealing is classified as, it must be prosecuted by the Federal Government.

    If you have anymore questions, please feel free to ask.

    Joe Camacho MKII on
    steam_sig.png I edit my posts a lot.
  • KevinNashKevinNash Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    redx wrote: »
    No tax revenue.

    Why apply more regressive taxes to something? This just hurts the poor.

    They can gain tax revenue by simply taxing the production via income taxes.

    KevinNash on
  • ForarForar #432 Toronto, Ontario, CanadaRegistered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Even as a non-user, I'm curious to see how this works out.

    Forar on
    First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
  • redxredx I(x)=2(x)+1 whole numbersRegistered User regular
    edited April 2009
    KevinNash wrote: »
    redx wrote: »
    No tax revenue.

    Why apply more regressive taxes to something? This just hurts the poor.

    They can gain tax revenue by simply taxing the production via income taxes.

    I didn't specify a sales tax, but I did assume one. Mostly because it can be taxed, and it's a vice so it's easy to get people to vote for. Tax it because you can. I suppose. I'm damn near socialist, so it's kind of a reflex. You have something like a point.

    However, with it being illegal, they cartels and dealers are almost certainly not paying income or capital gains on it--Al Capon's legacy be damned. If it were legal, the producers, dealers and intermediaries would pay taxes, and as it stands they, likely, do not. These would end up as progressive taxes, and if there was a fair amount of competition(multiple sources and prices not predominately controlled non-market forces, such as a heavy tax), not all of it would be passed on to the end users.

    If it is legal, you can levy the taxes wherever and however you please. If it is not, you have to count on people who constantly break the law to pay taxes on their illegal income. I could see some links in the chain covering themselves and laundering their money and paying taxes on it.

    redx on
    This machine kills threads.
  • CorvusCorvus . VancouverRegistered User regular
    edited April 2009
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    It's decriminalization, not legalization.

    And now Mexico has a more progressive drug policy than the US. That's somehow kind of sad.

    This shouldn't surprise you. Many countries have more progressive drug policies than the USA. The mexican policy seems like a decent start.

    Corvus on
    :so_raven:
  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    I can't see how this will impact the cartels in any meaningful way. Legalization, in general, won't get rid of the black market unless private industry can drive the price down through mass production while simultaneously the penalties for operating in the black market become more severe. Making consumption legal is only going to decrease the number of users in jail. I'm fine with that, but it arguably exacerbates the problem with the cartels.

    wwtMask on
    When he dies, I hope they write "Worst Affirmative Action Hire, EVER" on his grave. His corpse should be trolled.
    Twitter - @liberaltruths | Google+ - http://gplus.to/wwtMask | Occupy Tallahassee
  • SheepSheep Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2009
    A> Mexican marijuana sucks.

    B> Five grams of crappy weed isn't gonna really do much for ya.

    C> Drug cartels generally make heaps more cash on cocaine and heroin. Legalize that, and then maybe you'll be doing something "good".

    Sheep on
    QlBGc.jpg
«1
Sign In or Register to comment.