Mexico decriminalizes small-scale drug possession

Mexico has emphasized the need to differentiate drug addicts and casual users from the violent traffickers whose turf battles have contributed to the deaths of more than 11,000 people during Calderon's term. In the face of growing domestic drug use, Mexico has increased its focus on prevention and drug treatment.

Click to expand...

Even Mexico is starting to get it.

The Associated Press: Mexico decriminalizes small-scale drug possession

Excellent news. Mexico actually tried this a few years ago, but the Bush Administration applied intense pressure to get them to reverse course...and eventually they did. Perhaps Mexico has finally found an American government that, while not exactly being enlightened on the war on drugs, at least isn't willing to actively oppose this.

Somehow I do not think Mexico legalizing small scale drug possession is going to put a dent on the cartels seeing how the cartels are in the business of dealing in large amounts of drugs,therefore it is not going to do anything regarding the war on drugs. It might free up some jail space but thats about it. But seeing how they offer tax payer funded drug treatment it is still going to cost the tax payers money.

Things won't get any better because of this and that's the best case scenario. Might as well decriminalize murder, while their at it. Tax it, too. Say, a $500 surcharge on each murder, with a discounted rate for kids. I'm sure all those murderers would be busting their asses to get to the tax office and pay the surcharge on their future murders. Maybe their can be some kind of credit if the victim had it coming.

I can already see MSNBC and NY Times' article on this.

"Mexico Legalizes Drug Possession: Women and Minorities Worst Hit"

jamesrage said:

Somehow I do not think Mexico legalizing small scale drug possession is going to put a dent on the cartels seeing how the cartels are in the business of dealing in large amounts of drugs,therefore it is not going to do anything regarding the war on drugs. It might free up some jail space but thats about it.

Click to expand...

apdst said:

Things won't get any better because of this and that's the best case scenario.

Click to expand...

You're both exactly right. Decriminalization does not change that the cartels are still the sole suppliers of drugs, and does not change how they do business. The only thing it does is reduce the pressure on their customers, which allows them to do more business and funnel more money into their coffers.

The only way to drive the cartels out of the drug business-- and thus into businesses that are easier to track and prosecute, such as extortion and human trafficking-- is to force them into competition with legitimate businesses who will inevitably be able to provide better product at lower prices with safer business models. What our governments are powerless to control, Wal-Mart could demolish overnight.

apdst said:

Might as well decriminalize murder, while their at it. Tax it, too. Say, a $500 surcharge on each murder, with a discounted rate for kids.

Click to expand...

Actually, it would be stupid to start applying the sin taxes to drugs while we're still fighting the cartels. The higher the taxes, the less legitimate businesses can undercut their profit margins-- since, as you note, criminals won't be paying the taxes. License existing firms to produce the drugs according to regulatory standards and don't apply more than the regular sales tax to them. Then, once you've broken the cartels' backs, you can start applying higher taxes to the legitimate products.

The tax rates would have to be absolutely outrageous before the cartels-- or new organized crime-- would be able to use drugs to regain their former power.

The reason I think this will do nothing is that the cartels are more intereste in the US market where we have more cash more demand and more profit.

Korimyr the Rat said:

...is to force them into competition with legitimate businesses who will inevitably be able to provide better product at lower prices with safer business models. What our governments are powerless to control, Wal-Mart could demolish overnight.



...Actually, it would be stupid to start applying the sin taxes to drugs while we're still fighting the cartels. The higher the taxes, the less legitimate businesses can undercut their profit margins-- since, as you note, criminals won't be paying the taxes. License existing firms to produce the drugs according to regulatory standards and don't apply more than the regular sales tax to them. Then, once you've broken the cartels' backs, you can start applying higher taxes to the legitimate products.

The tax rates would have to be absolutely outrageous before the cartels-- or new organized crime-- would be able to use drugs to regain their former power.

Click to expand...

I'm having a hard time believing that the cartels are going to just sit back while Jose Q. Public opens a drug shop and under cuts their multi-billion dollar business. They're not going to wake up Monday morning and say, "well, drugs have been decriminalized, we're not going to kill our competitors anymore, because that would be illegal". That's just me.

apdst said:

I'm having a hard time believing that the cartels are going to just sit back while Jose Q. Public opens a drug shop and under cuts their multi-billion dollar business. They're not going to wake up Monday morning and say, "well, drugs have been decriminalized, we're not going to kill our competitors anymore, because that would be illegal". That's just me.

Click to expand...

We were well my girlfriends family is seriously thinking about opening a pot shop in CA. And I had the exact same issue to raise.

winston53660 said:

We were well my girlfriends family is seriously thinking about opening a pot shop in CA. And I had the exact same issue to raise.

Click to expand...

I would certainly think twice about it, unless I was strapped and ready to rumble. I've been a part of business ventures that were remotely related to that in the past and at the end of the day, the profit margin sucks ass.

apdst said:

I'm having a hard time believing that the cartels are going to just sit back while Jose Q. Public opens a drug shop and under cuts their multi-billion dollar business.

Click to expand...

Of course not. José Q. Publica is going to end up dead of lead poisoning. That's why decriminalization is useless, and that's why I'm not talking about decriminalization and José Q. Publica's corner bodega. I am talking about multi-billion dollar multi-national corporations that can afford armed security and who can guarantee that if they're attacked, there will be enough physical evidence and surveillance footage to guarantee convictions in even the most corrupt courts.

You're talking about local businessmen. I'm talking about organizations that can, and have, bought whole governments in the past.

Korimyr the Rat said:

Of course not. José Q. Publica is going to end up dead of lead poisoning. That's why decriminalization is useless, and that's why I'm not talking about decriminalization and José Q. Publica's corner bodega. I am talking about multi-billion dollar multi-national corporations that can afford armed security and who can guarantee that if they're attacked, there will be enough physical evidence and surveillance footage to guarantee convictions in even the most corrupt courts.

You're talking about local businessmen. I'm talking about organizations that can, and have, bought whole governments in the past.

Click to expand...

Sounds to me like you're re-inventing the wheel. The only difference being that instead of the government going to war against the cartels, it'll be private industry who are in competition with the cartels for the drug business. Do we really want to enable multi-billion dollar coporations to have that much power?

apdst said:

Sounds to me like you're re-inventing the wheel. The only difference being that instead of the government going to war against the cartels, it'll be private industry who are in competition with the cartels for the drug business. Do we really want to enable multi-billion dollar coporations to have that much power?

Click to expand...

They already do have that kind of power.

apdst said:

I'm having a hard time believing that the cartels are going to just sit back while Jose Q. Public opens a drug shop and under cuts their multi-billion dollar business. They're not going to wake up Monday morning and say, "well, drugs have been decriminalized, we're not going to kill our competitors anymore, because that would be illegal". That's just me.

Click to expand...

I think you are right with that assumption. Legalization will not ease their problem with the cartels for this reason alone.It would be different if the government there was adequate enough to stop the cartels. But if that was the case then no would be using the argument that legalizing will take it out of the hands of the cartels.

winston53660 said:

We were well my girlfriends family is seriously thinking about opening a pot shop in CA. And I had the exact same issue to raise.

Click to expand...

I do not think cartels run amok in California.

Harry Guerrilla said:

They already do have that kind of power.

Click to expand...

You're a little insane, aren't you?

Korimyr the Rat said:

I am talking about multi-billion dollar multi-national corporations that can afford armed security and who can guarantee that if they're attacked, there will be enough physical evidence and surveillance footage to guarantee convictions in even the most corrupt courts.

You're talking about local businessmen. I'm talking about organizations that can, and have, bought whole governments in the past.

Click to expand...

What? Who the hell do you think is going to invest in a business that expects its employees to die, and whose name does not start with 'B' and ends with 'Lackwater?'

Just thinking of the lawsuits is enough to turn me green.

Then to think of the PR? God knows the big cigarette companies (I'm use them as a example, because of the ample amount of trademarks they hold for these sort of potential products) just got over their title of "Merchants of Death" and now in your universe they're going to have shock troops, while they battle in the streets for the control of a operation whose legality is - at best - of middling certainty?

I think I speak for the world when I say "no thanks."

Harry Guerrilla said:

They already do have that kind of power.

Click to expand...

So, you wanna make it worse?

Metternich said:

You're a little insane, aren't you?

Click to expand...

The cake is a lie. :2razz:

In all seriousness, virtually no major legislation is passed without some sort of corporate support and when you look at campaign donations, you will see who has the power behind our government.

After that it's mostly a PR battle between opposing corporate interests and whoever has the most appealing message wins the support of the people whether or not it is actually good government policy.

Does anyone here have the kind of access to the President and Congress that they do?

apdst said:

So, you wanna make it worse?

Click to expand...

The only way it could be worse in my eyes would be that you actually see the power struggle between opposing corporate factions and do nothing about it.

You and I are second fiddle to politician's corporate interests.

Do the people who support a complete drug legalization know anything about crime other then jaywalking and buying dimes every few days? Drug cartels making 20 billion dollars a year on cocaine deals don't disappear because we make drug consumption legal. This silliness that most libertarians and a lot of liberals seem to believe regarding drug crime is that it's the sort of criminal offense which if legalized would result in the disappearance of drug houses, human slavery etc. and then they bring up alcohol & Prohibition.

The worst example to back a case for legalizing drugs would be Prohibition at the start of the century. Why? Because the competitions bootleggers faced and that which drug dealers face were not the same and the products were not the same. Alcohol, unless you're ridiculously allergic to it or decide to drink an insane amount would almost never, or under most normal circumstances simply can't kill a person. You can't say the same for cocaine, heroin, meth & dozens of other drugs. How much do you want to bet that Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson and Bayer would NEVER take a gamble on drugs harder then marijuana for that very reason?

So then what would we have? Criminal drug cartels who are now allowed to conduct business legally. They'll still force hundreds if not thousands of people around the world to produce drugs in the jungles of Bolivia or the valleys of Afghanistan. They'd still destroy entire families with their drugs and the only difference would be that it would all be perfectly legal. Thanks but I'd rather pay taxes and have the DEA make their lives a little harder.

I think that the intent of the bill was to cut down on police corruption. To discourage police from extorting small time users.
In part, I think this because it was mentioned it the couple of articles that I read about it.

So, it doesn't seem to be directed at any of the targets people in this thread have said it won't achieve. Instead it seems to be directed at a form of police corruption. I am just going by what the Mexicans said. So I may be way off.

All imho, ymmv.

Hatuey said:

Do the people who support a complete drug legalization know anything about crime other then jaywalking and buying dimes every few days? Drug cartels making 20 billion dollars a year on cocaine deals don't disappear because we make drug consumption legal.

Click to expand...

Actually they do. Or at least they'd have to find a new line of work. What's the point in operating a huge criminal empire if the product you sell is legal (and therefore the profit margins are much lower)? How often do you see criminal organizations selling legal products/services as their main line of business?

Hatuey said:

This silliness that most libertarians and a lot of liberals seem to believe regarding drug crime is that it's the sort of criminal offense which if legalized would result in the disappearance of drug houses, human slavery etc. and then they bring up alcohol & Prohibition.

The worst example to back a case for legalizing drugs would be Prohibition at the start of the century. Why? Because the competitions bootleggers faced and that which drug dealers face were not the same and the products were not the same.

Click to expand...

How were they not the same? Both were constantly under pressure from the police as well as their criminal competitors. Both decided that the potential profit margins were worth the risk. Both answered to vast criminal enterprises (the Mafia for alcohol, the drug cartels for drugs).

Hatuey said:

Alcohol, unless you're ridiculously allergic to it or decide to drink an insane amount would almost never, or under most normal circumstances simply can't kill a person. You can't say the same for cocaine, heroin, meth & dozens of other drugs.

Click to expand...

Irrelevant. We have now gone from talking about drug cartels and the economics/sociology of legalization, to talking about whether or not their product can kill you. There are plenty of legal products that can kill people. This has nothing to do with anything.

Hatuey said:

How much do you want to bet that Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson and Bayer would NEVER take a gamble on drugs harder then marijuana for that very reason?

Click to expand...

You're talking about pharmaceutical companies who are in the business of providing drugs for medicinal purposes. Of course they would have no interest in hard drugs (except for those purposes). But there are plenty of other companies who provide drugs for recreational purposes (liquor stores, tobacco stores, etc) who would.

Hatuey said:

So then what would we have? Criminal drug cartels who are now allowed to conduct business legally.

Click to expand...

The mere act of legalization means that they would no longer have a reason to exist.

Hatuey said:

They'll still force hundreds if not thousands of people around the world to produce drugs in the jungles of Bolivia or the valleys of Afghanistan.

Click to expand...

Uhh most of those farmers CHOOSE to grow those crops because they make more money than alternative crops (and even the ones who don't are forced to do so because of the high profit margin). I'll give you three guesses what makes those crops so expensive. Hint: It ain't the substances themselves.

Hatuey said:

They'd still destroy entire families with their drugs and the only difference would be that it would all be perfectly legal. Thanks but I'd rather pay taxes and have the DEA make their lives a little harder.

Click to expand...

The DEA is the only thing keeping the cartels alive. And which "destroys entire families" more often - drugs or the DEA? At best, it's a tossup.

Hatuey said:

Do the people who support a complete drug legalization know anything about crime other then jaywalking and buying dimes every few days? Drug cartels making 20 billion dollars a year on cocaine deals don't disappear because we make drug consumption legal.

Click to expand...

Yea, because the black market for cigarettes and alcohol is totally booming right now.

This silliness that most libertarians and a lot of liberals seem to believe regarding drug crime is that it's the sort of criminal offense which if legalized would result in the disappearance of drug houses, human slavery etc. and then they bring up alcohol & Prohibition.

Click to expand...

Yea, because the black market for cigarettes and alcohol is totally booming right now.

The worst example to back a case for legalizing drugs would be Prohibition at the start of the century. Why? Because the competitions bootleggers faced and that which drug dealers face were not the same and the products were not the same. Alcohol, unless you're ridiculously allergic to it or decide to drink an insane amount would almost never, or under most normal circumstances simply can't kill a person. You can't say the same for cocaine, heroin, meth & dozens of other drugs. How much do you want to bet that Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson and Bayer would NEVER take a gamble on drugs harder then marijuana for that very reason?

Click to expand...

Huh?

So then what would we have? Criminal drug cartels who are now allowed to conduct business legally. They'll still force hundreds if not thousands of people around the world to produce drugs in the jungles of Bolivia or the valleys of Afghanistan. They'd still destroy entire families with their drugs and the only difference would be that it would all be perfectly legal. Thanks but I'd rather pay taxes and have the DEA make their lives a little harder.

Click to expand...

Re: Portugal.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/greenwald_whitepaper.pdf

Are they "getting it" or capitulating while large numbers of dismembered, decapitated, or otherwise executed bodies are inconveniently piling up about their troubled country?

Oftencold said:

Are they "getting it" or capitulating while large numbers of dismembered, decapitated, or otherwise executed bodies are inconveniently piling up about their troubled country?

Click to expand...

Capitulation, for sure. It's a sign of weakness and the cartels are going to exploit the hell out of it.