
Mexico supreme court rules ban on marijuana use unconstitutional - forloop
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/04/mexico-supreme-court-recreational-marijuana-legal
======
r0s
> The move potentially puts Mexico at the forefront of an international
> movement to decriminalize drugs – despite a decade-long militarized
> crackdown on drug cartels which has cost the lives of around 100,000 people.

This is a sane and direct response to exactly that.

~~~
Retric
Drug cartels don't make there money selling to people in Mexico, the real
money is in the US market.

~~~
kzrdude
How much money is in marijuana compared to harder drugs? I mean, does this put
much of a dent in the organized crime economy?

~~~
ojbyrne
[http://www.newrepublic.com/article/politics/magazine/104914/...](http://www.newrepublic.com/article/politics/magazine/104914/greg-
campbell-blunt-trauma-marijuana)

says "In 2010, Mexican officials estimated that cannabis now provides the
cartels with as much as half of their revenue."

~~~
uououuttt
I have also seen this 50% figure from various sources but I find it hard to
believe, although I have no specific knowledge that would refute it. As far as
I know, it's mostly low-grade weed that comes over the border, and while some
grow operations within the US are cartel-run, I still am so surprised it would
equal their profits from cocaine and methamphetamine combined.

~~~
smoe
I think another aspect is, that the mexican cartels can grow the marijuana
themselves and gain full profit off it, while cocaine or coca plants/paste
have to be imported from south america.

------
iamcurious
I never thought this would happen so quickly. Latin America has a drug problem
that holds all development back, the problem is that drugs are illegal. I'm
happy that Mexico is being so brave. viva Mexico cabrones!

my last comment still applies though...
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10503260](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10503260)

------
sowhatquestion
What shocked me about this article was the poll showing 77% of people in
Mexico are opposed to legalization. Why? Social conservatism? Do they not
understand that prohibition benefits the cartels and funds their violence?

~~~
saint_fiasco
The cartels make most of their money selling drugs to people in other, richer
countries.

If the US does not legalize those drugs, then Mexico will have to take the
cost of legalization without it's biggest benefit.

~~~
tomp
Why? There will still be criminals tradficking drugs to the US... They just
won't be ceiminals in Mexico any more!

~~~
frame_perfect
Isn't that the whole point? If legalization goes through and the crime is only
localized to the U.S., then Mexico's supreme court reduced crime in Mexico.

~~~
saint_fiasco
Reducing crime by not calling something a crime doesn't help very much.

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.

~~~
tomp
Well, guess what, that's _exactly_ what helped in the US, ending the
prohibition. Violent crimes, corruption etc. happen because people (drug users
and drug sellers) can't conduct business legally. When they can, they use the
police to resolve problems and generally abide by regulations, because it's
simply cheaper to do business that way.

------
crpatino
Ok, let me try to clarify, because lots of nonsense have been spoken here
already.

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.

~~~
dang
> _gringo 's arrogance knows no limit_

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.

~~~
crpatino
I think my comment was extremely fair at the time when I wrote it. I am glad
to see that more intelligent debate is going on now, but please go see the
nonsense written at the bottom of the page and judge by yourself. I'd rather
not point specific examples.

And thanks for your compliments too.

~~~
kefka
This potentially derails the conversation, but also falls within your ire of
fellow US citizens' thoughts.

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?

~~~
zdkl
If your argument is that you, as an American, feel farfrom your government,
imagine what it's like for the rest of the world.

------
api
I realized today that it's a privilege to watch prohibition die; it gives me
faith in the future to witness the end of a profound injustice in my time.

~~~
a3voices
Morality aside, I think widespread drug legalization will greatly increase
usage rates. It could lead to a more dystopic future where a very large
portion of people are using various drugs.

~~~
mvanvoorden
If anything, certain illegal substances, like hallucinogens, have opened my
eyes and gotten me out of depression, by making me see what's important in
life. Without it, I might have committed suicide, or at least be still stuck
(or even deeper) in a situation I don't want to be in.

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.

~~~
frame_perfect
If you excluded cannabis from your comment, I'd agree with you 100%. Cannabis
_can_ be both, but for me, and a lot of people I know, regular use just
promotes bad habits and lifestyle choices. But to each his/her own.

(btw I support legalization of cannabis and other psychs)

~~~
mvanvoorden
I know what you mean. I've used cannabis a lot in my past, and my life was
basically standing still. But without, my life felt unbearable. It turned out
that changing what I was doing with my life eliminated the need completely,
and without any signs of withdrawal effects.

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](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ao8L-0nSYzg)

------
transfire
"If people let the government decide what foods they eat and what medicines
they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of
those who live under tyranny." \--Thomas Jefferson

~~~
Tomte
I suppose you'd like to take FDA-unapproved medication? I wouldn't.

~~~
dchest
You say it like there's a choice.

~~~
diqu
You say that like there's a sane and safe alternative.

~~~
tomp
What if you don't care? If I were terminally ill, dying in a few months, I
would definitely be interested in trying the latest experimental drugs. I
mean, what's the worst that can happen? (Although legalizing euthanasia would
help too.)

~~~
diqu
This is already happening, even with agencies like the FDA in place. It's
called off-label use:
[http://www.cancer.org/treatment/treatmentsandsideeffects/tre...](http://www.cancer.org/treatment/treatmentsandsideeffects/treatmenttypes/chemotherapy/off-
label-drug-use)

------
rplnt
Going just by the title, it's obvious. I was really amazed when I learned that
use of illegal drugs is prohibited (punishable offense) in US. It makes
absolutely no sense in a civilized society.

~~~
paublyrne
Not sure why you were downvoted. I assume you mean you didn't know that it was
illegal to be under the influence of drugs, as opposed to it being illegal to
have drugs in your possession?

~~~
rplnt
Yes, that. Use or influence as opposed to possession/distribution.

edit: And as for downvotes, I'd say the "going just by the title" part is a
bit offensive :)

------
taylorlapeyre
Not to sound cynical, but (even if marijuana was legal to grow and consume)
what's to stop a cartel from simply threatening the lives of anyone else who
grows it?

~~~
jpatokal
The same that stops the mafia from threatening anybody who brews beer or
distills liquor: the target can now call the cops.

~~~
steve19
The cops who work for the cartel [1]?

[1] [http://time.com/3490853/mexico-massacre-students-police-
cart...](http://time.com/3490853/mexico-massacre-students-police-cartel-
corruption/)

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.

~~~
jpatokal
Imagine alcohol was illegal in Mexico, was suddenly legalized, and then the
booze mafia and the corrupt cops on their payroll go around threatening home
brewers selling their wares.

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?

------
ps4fanboy
[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1957938/](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1957938/)

------
esaym
>"In a 4-1 ruling, the court found that prohibitions on using marijuana
violated the 'right to the free development of personality'"

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?

~~~
ahallock
Why don't we stop enumerating specific rights (which leads to picking winners
and losers and inconsistent application) and refactor them into a few basic
principles. Such as the basic property right of self ownership. Since you own
your body, not the State, you may use marijuana. Simple.

~~~
PhantomGremlin
We actually have such an amendment:

    
    
       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.
    

Unfortunately the Supreme Court treats it like a fucking joke[1]:

 _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_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Commerce_clause)

~~~
unabridged
I like to think of it more as a Ninth Amendment issue:

    
    
      The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights,
      shall not be construed to deny or disparage others
      retained by the people
    

Just because a "right to the free development of personality" isn't
specifically listed doesn't mean we don't have it.

