
Mexico Decriminalizes Marijuana, Cocaine, Heroin and Other Drugs - ojbyrne
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/21/world/americas/21mexico.html
======
asdlfj2sd33
How will this affect the illegal smuggling operations into the US? Probably
not at all. If the US legalizes drugs that would bankrupt the drug cartels in
Mexico.

~~~
dkokelley
I agree. The law is really just reflecting unwritten rules already adhered to
there.

I disagree that legalization would bankrupt the cartels. While a good portion
of their operations involve non-essential tasks like smuggling,
transportation, and security (and bribes, I suppose), the cartels are in the
best position to capitalize on legalization. They have the growing and
refining operations down on a scale large enough to support the (supposed)
increased demand due to legalization. The smuggling portion of their costs
will be substituted with marketing and supply chain management costs.

~~~
mixmax
The difference is that prices would be driven down. The reason the drug
cartels make obscene amounts of money is that they operate a monopoly, which
they defend with violence and killings. If the market became legalized other
players would enter the market until the profits were driven down to normal
levels. And a gram of coke would cost you $1 on the street.

~~~
njharman
There's little reason to suppose that with legalization the cartels will
suddenly stop using bribes, violence and killings to maintain their monopoly.

They would be reduced, not crippled. They would move onto whatever was in
demand but still illegal, harder drugs, guns, slaves.

Nobody with millions and millions of dollars at stake goes down without a
fight.

~~~
uriel
> There's little reason to suppose that with legalization the cartels will
> suddenly stop using bribes, violence and killings to maintain their
> monopoly.

All of which are illegal, and as such mean extra costs, which would put them
at disadvantage with legal competitor.

I'm not sure, but I don't think many of the mafia gangs that ran the alcohol
business survived the end of prohibition very well, the alcohol industry has
been run as a normal business ever since.

~~~
anamax
> I'm not sure, but I don't think many of the mafia gangs that ran the alcohol
> business survived the end of prohibition very well, the alcohol industry has
> been run as a normal business ever since.

That's true of large-scale criminal enterprise, but small-scale moonshine
continued until the cost of raw materials started to approach the cost of the
cheapest hard liquor in stores.

Post-prohibition moonshine runs is where/why NASCAR came from.

------
quantumhobbit
The article states that people will not be arrested for possession, but says
nothing about sale. It sounds like this wouldn't allow Amsterdam style "coffee
shops" only allow the police to ignore minor infractions as they apparently
already do.

~~~
nico
On this article:

\-
[http://www.tribunalatina.com/es/notices/mexico_despenaliza_l...](http://www.tribunalatina.com/es/notices/mexico_despenaliza_la_posesion_de_drogas_para_uso_personal_18053.php)

It says:

 _Según la nueva ley, los policías estatales y federales podrán poner trampas
a los vendedores mediante la compra de narcóticos y lograr la detención de los
responsables de su tráfico._

Which translates to (google translator is good!):

"Under the new law, federal and state police may set traps to sellers through
the purchase of drugs and to arrest those responsible for trafficking."

So you are right, no "coffee shops" or anything like it.

------
JBiserkov
Take that, Steve Yegge ;)

Context: [http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2009/04/have-you-ever-
legali...](http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2009/04/have-you-ever-legalized-
marijuana.html)

~~~
pavelludiq
"President Felipe Calderón waited months before approving the law."

:D

------
riffic
NORML has a rebuttal to this article on their blog:

[http://blog.norml.org/2009/08/21/new-york-times-mexico-
legal...](http://blog.norml.org/2009/08/21/new-york-times-mexico-legalizes-
drug-possession-well-not-exactly/)

~~~
tetha
They miss the point that merely the title is misleading.

The correct title should have been 'Mexico legalizes drug addictions', and I
consider this a very, very good and important step for a country.

Why? Because there is a certain asymmetry in the drug scene.

On the one hand, you have those guys who are addicted. They buy small amounts
of drugs to consume and, well, consume them. Usually, and especially for those
harsher drugs, however, this addiction is physical, which -- at least to me --
qualifies as a sickness.

On the other hand, you have the professional drug dealers. They buy large
amounts of drugs (much more than one could consume and not die) and sell drugs
to other people. I consider this to be a nasty abuse of sick people (one might
go as far and sort of compare it with stealing purses from people in
wheelchairs, even though that might be a bit harsh).

Thus, mexico legalized a disease, while keeping abuse and organized
criminality illegal, which seems like a good, correct step to me.

~~~
riffic
NORML seems to only be concerned with marijuana law reform. From a marijuana
standpoint, addiction is irrelevant. You can't get physically addicted to
marijuana, and recreational users of cannabis are not sick; no more so than
recreational non abusers of alcohol.

~~~
joshhart
While this is true, gambling and video games aren't physically addictive and I
know several people who suffer from addictions to one or the other.

------
nico
Sometimes nytimes.com forces me to login to read articles. Only if it's
interesting enough (the title at least) I'll bite. For these cases I recommend
BugMeNot: <http://www.bugmenot.com/view/nytimes.com>

~~~
collision
Google the article title and follow that link. You won't get the paywall.

~~~
dougp
It is interesting I noticed that the NY Times seems to be doing some A/B
testing around this. I Followed a link and was surprised to be able to read
when I clicked on the second page link it told me to login. When my co worker
went to this page he had to click past one of those big skip this
advertisement pages but the article was all on one page and he didn't have to
login.

------
tremendo
Article in NYT has yesterday's date, but I cannot find any similar note on
Mexican news sites.

An immediate consequence could be harder, longer times crossing the border
from Mexico back into the U.S. For labor day weekend coming up, it's
traditionally a 3 or 4-hr affair to get accross by car, it can only get worse
with these news.

~~~
nico
This law was vetoed by the president of Mexico in 2006 and sent back to
congress for review:

\- <http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/nacion/137975.html>

Then it was finally approved on April of this year:

\-
[http://www.tribunalatina.com/es/notices/mexico_despenaliza_l...](http://www.tribunalatina.com/es/notices/mexico_despenaliza_la_posesion_de_drogas_para_uso_personal_18053.php)

Edit: corrected description of links. Thanks PieSquared for noting the veto.

~~~
PieSquared
While I'm not fluent in spanish, the gist I get from the article is that it
was vetoed and sent back to Congress in 2006; perhaps it has only been passed
recently?

~~~
nico
You are absolutely right, in the first article it says the president vetoed
the law the first time in 2006. Nevertheless the law was approved by congress
in April of this year, so it appears like the NYTimes article is a few months
late.

------
dylanz
If 5 grams is 4 joints, I'm either a lightweight, or I've been doing it wrong.
I think I'd be able to roll 4 joints in "1" gram.

------
chrischen
They should legalize it all. Then Microsoft go in and drive the drug dealers
out of business.

------
mynameishere
_0.015 milligrams of LSD._

I'm not an expert, but I believe that's enough to intoxicate the entire
world's population of elephants.

~~~
pwmanagerdied
0.015 mg = 15 μg. According to erowid.org, the threshold dosage for LSD
averages around 20 μg. It sounds like this isn't enough to significantly
effect a human, let alone elephants. Am I missing something?

~~~
mynameishere
_Am I missing something?_

You are missing 0.015 mg of a sense of humor.

~~~
pwmanagerdied
A reference, perhaps?

~~~
mynameishere
???

Clue #1: My comment was a joke.

Clue #2: Jokes aren't necessarily funny.

Clue #3: Even if a joke isn't funny, it is still a joke.

Clue #4: Jokes, whatever the degree of funnyness, are not appropriately
responded-to by "How did you come about such-and-such a miscalculation? I
demand citations." My calculations were deliberately fallacious; see Clue #1.

This website is sometimes like a frickin' Aspergers asylum.

~~~
jrockway
Yeah, damn those Aspergers fuckers, trying to assume you were being
intelligent instead of a moron who thinks the site is Reddit! I hate people
like that, always being nice and using their brains.....

~~~
mynameishere
I've never seen such an asshole comment get upmodded so much. It'll all fade
anyway.

