mexico to legalize it

[Caprinardo Delirio]

from danish newspaper Politiken:

Mexico to legalize drugs.

In the future it will no longer be illegal to posess drugs like heroine, cocaine or hash for one's own usage, in mexico.

The presidents signature is all that remains of the new law of narcotics that a majority of mexico's senators accepted this week.

And president vincente fox have already signalled that he supports the law, which also ties to an effort for giving drug smugglers higher sentences.

This law will give the authorities more judicial means with which to fight crime, said the presidents puppy dogs.

The law will legalize drugs in small amounts
and thus give the police time to go after the drug lords instead of the users, reasons the mexican politicians.

Quite so enthused dosen't one view the new law, north of the mexican border. the us, who counts on mexico's support in the war against the drug lords, are severely sceptic.

"I would say that a law that will decriminalize dangerous substances isn't very useful", says judith bryan, who is a spokes-quoteunquote-person of the american embassy in mexico city.

the new rules will mean that it will be legal to posess five grams of hash, five grams of opium, 25 milligrams of heorine or half a gram of cocaine. other substances like amphetamine and LSD will also be legal in small amounts.

-------------

hash? the metric system? i'm effin going, that's all that's left to be done.. i dig this translating thing!

[ April 29, 2006, 02:01 AM: Message edited by: Caprinardo Delirio ]

[Thom]

http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/news...XICO-DRUGS.xml
Mexico to decriminalize pot, cocaine and heroin
Sat Apr 29, 2006 2:05 AM BST

By Noel Randewich

MEXICO CITY (Reuters) - Possessing marijuana, cocaine and even heroin will no longer be a crime in Mexico if they are in small amounts for personal use under new reforms passed by Congress that quickly drew U.S. criticism.

The measure given final passage 53-26 by senators in a late night session on Thursday is aimed at letting police focus on their battle against major drug dealers, and President Vicente Fox is expected to sign it into law.

"This law provides more judicial tools for authorities to fight crime," presidential spokesman Ruben Aguilar said on Friday.

He said the reforms, which were proposed by the government and approved earlier this week by the lower house of Congress, made laws against major traffickers "more severe."

The legislation came as a shock to Washington, which counts on Mexico's support in its war against drug smuggling gangs who move massive quantities of cocaine, heroin, marijuana and methamphetamines through Mexico to U.S. consumers.

"I would say any law that decriminalizes dangerous drugs is not very helpful," said Judith Bryan, spokeswoman for the U.S. Embassy in Mexico City. "Drugs are dangerous. We don't think it is the appropriate way to go."

She said U.S. officials were still studying the reforms, under which police will not penalize people for possessing up to 5 grams of marijuana, 5 grams of opium, 25 milligrams of heroin or 500 milligrams of cocaine.

People caught with larger quantities of drugs will be treated as narcotics dealers and face increased jail terms under the plan.

The legal changes will also decriminalize the possession of limited quantities of other drugs, including LSD, hallucinogenic mushrooms, amphetamines and peyote -- a psychotropic cactus found in Mexico's northern deserts.

Fox has been seen as a loyal ally of the United States in the war on drugs, but the reforms could create new tensions.

A delegation from the U.S. House of Representatives visited Mexico last week and met with senior officials to discuss drug control issues, but was told nothing of the planned legislative changes, said Michelle Gress, a House subcommittee counsel who was part of the visiting team. "We were not informed," she said.

HARDENED CRIMINALS

Hundreds of people, including many police officers, have been killed in Mexico in the past year as drug cartels battle for control of lucrative smuggling routes into the United States.

The violence has raged mostly in northern Mexico but in recent months has spread south to cities like vacation resort Acapulco.

Under current law, it is up to local judges and police to decide on a case-by-case basis whether people should be prosecuted for possessing small quantities of drugs, a source at the Senate's health commission told Reuters.

"The object of this law is to not put consumers in jail, but rather those who sell and poison," said Senator Jorge Zermeno of the ruling National Action Party.

Hector Michel Camarena, an opposition senator from the Institutional Revolutionary Party, warned that although well intentioned, the law may go too far.

"There are serious questions we have to carefully analyse so that through our spirit of fighting drug dealing, we don't end up legalizing," he said. "We have to get rid of the concept of the (drug) consumer."

(Additional reporting by Anahi Rama)

[Thom]

Evo Morales and the coca market: http://gnn.tv/headlines/6793/Can_Evo...ld_Coca_Market

Does anyone know if Venezuela has decriminalized possession for personal use? I seem to remember Chavez saying he planned to do so...

[sacha]

from stopthedrugwar.org (dated January 2004, can't find anything more recent)

Venezuela Moving to Decriminalize Drug Possession 1/16/04

The embattled government of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is moving to decriminalize drug possession. But contrary to some reports circulating on drug reform email lists, decriminalization in Venezuela is by no means a done deal. The opposition newspaper El Universal (Caracas) reported Tuesday that as part of its sweeping reform of the country's penal code, the Chavez government will include the decriminalization of the possession of small amounts of drugs for personal use. The proposed reform would also address penalties for drug trafficking and manufacture, creating a system of sentences based on weight rather than the current system, which subjects all trafficking and manufacturing crimes to the same harsh set of sentences.

Under the proposed new Article 383 of the penal code, "A personal dose would be understood to be the quantity of the drug that does not exceed the average five-day personal consumption; and a maintenance (or supply) dose would be the quantity of the drug used by the average person (as determined by experts) for no more than 10 days."

Under the article, people caught with "personal dose" or "maintenance dose" amounts of illegal drugs will face no criminal sanction. The benchmarks for those doses have not yet been set. Benchmarks for new, graduated penalties for trafficking and manufacturing offenses have been set:

* 4-6 years if the quantity is greater than the "personal dose" or "maintenance dose" but less than the amounts listed immediately below.
* 6-10 years if the quantity is more than 1000 grams of marijuana; 200 grams of hashish or synthetic drugs, or 20 grams of cocaine, cocaine base, or opiates.
* 8-12 years if the quantity is more than above but less than 10,000 grams of marijuana, 4,000 grams of synthetic drugs, 3,000 grams of hashish, 2,000 grams of cocaine or cocaine base, or 70 grams of opiates.
* 10-20 years for offenses exceeding the quantities listed immediately above.

In all of the above cases, prison sentences can also be coupled with fines. The amounts of those fines are unclear at this time. Typically in Latin America, fines are computed by multiples of the daily minimum wage. The proposed Venezeulan reform speaks of fines in "tributary units." DRCNet is not yet sure exactly what those are.

Venezuelan penologist José Luis Tamayo told El Universal the changes in drug trafficking penalties were needed to ensure justice in sentencing. The reform "would correct a certain current injustice, since today those who traffic drugs in large quantities (for example, a ton of cocaine) are punished with the same sentence as those who traffic in small quantities (for example, 10 grams of cocaine)," he said. "In this manner, the greater or lesser the quantity of the drug detected in each case would be punished in a proportional manner."

Whether the proposed decriminalization becomes the law of the land depends on whether it is approved by the judicial and legislative branches, Venezuelan embassy spokeswoman Arelis Paiva told DRCNet Thursday. "Under Venezuelan law, the reform has to be approved by the Supreme Judicial Tribunal and then by the National Assembly," she said. That process "could take months," she added.

The passage of decriminalization also depends on the survival of the Chavez government. The democratically-elected president faces a possible referendum over his rule this summer. The referendum to remove Chavez -- signatures are still being counted in a highly contentious process -- is the latest effort by Venezuela's elites and upper classes to remove the populist, nationalist leader. Those elites, aided and abetted by the US government, attempted unsuccessfully to overthrow Chavez with a coup in 2002 and have remained unalterably opposed to his rule ever since. (Chavez himself attempted a coup in 1992 and was imprisoned, but he used that imprisonment to launch his career as a democratic politician.)

The move toward decriminalization of drug possession will likely provide even more ammunition for the Chavez demonization campaign emanating from the White House, the State Department, and more shadowy agencies. Chavez is already well-hated by the conservative ideologues, such as Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs Roger Noriega, a former aide to Sen. Jesse Helms, and Bush's special envoy to the region Otto Reich, who cut his teeth helping craft the Reagan administration's wars in Central America in the 1980s.

Both men have recently increased their drumbeat of criticism of Chavez, particularly in the run-up to this week's Summit of the Americas in Mexico. Among other things, they accuse Chavez of providing assistance to the revolt in Bolivia that overthrew US ally President Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada in October -- but they did so gutlessly, retreating to the anonymity of "officials who declined to be named" in an Associated Press story last week.

The attacks on Venezuela from Washington drew a predictable response from Caracas. President Chavez bluntly told the US to butt out of Venezuelan internal affairs, and Foreign Minister Carlos Rangel angrily denied the charges. "If they have any evidence... they should put it on the table so we can discuss it," Rangel told reporters in Caracas on January 6. "What proof do they have of these statements?" Like Rangel, we are still waiting for a response.

[Led_Zeppelin]

Mexico Passes Law Making Possession of Some Drugs Legal

By JAMES C. McKINLEY Jr.
Published: April 29, 2006
MEXICO CITY, April 28 — Mexican lawmakers passed a sweeping new drug law early Friday that would crack down on small-time dealers, legalize the possession of small quantities of drugs and mandate treatment for addicts.

Under the bill, it would be legal to have 25 milligrams of heroin, a fifth of an ounce of marijuana or half a gram of cocaine. The bill also makes it legal to possess small amounts of LSD, hallucinogenic mushrooms, amphetamines and peyote.

President Vicente Fox had proposed the law in January 2004 in the hopes of slowing down the rapid growth in drug addiction and the ranks of small-time dealers that has hit Mexican cities and towns in recent years, just as it has long plagued American cities.

Both houses of the Mexican Congress passed it in a last-minute flurry of legislation as their session drew to a close. The final version of the bill passed the Senate by a vote of 53 to 26 during an all-night session that ended Friday morning. After its final approval, the president's spokesman, Ruben Aguilar, said Mr. Fox would sign it into law.

"This law gives police and prosecutors better legal tools to combat drug crimes that do so much damage to our youth and children," Mr. Aguilar said.

A United States Embassy official in Mexico deplored the new measure. "We have not seen the text, so we cannot comment on it in detail," said the official, who was not authorized to speak publicly. "But any law that would decriminalize dangerous drugs would not be helpful."

Supporters of the bill said it was meant to fix major flaws in Mexico's current drug laws. First, it will allow local judges and the police to decide on a case-by-case basis whether people should be prosecuted when caught with small amounts of drugs. Previously, every drug suspect had to be prosecuted, a system that put many addicts in jail while dealers went free after bribing officials.

Second, the state and local police will be empowered to arrest and prosecute street dealers who are carrying more than the minor amounts allowed under the law. Under existing laws, drug crimes were handled only by federal officials.

The new measure also requires people caught with less than the legal limits to go before a judge, prove they are addicts and seek treatment.

"We are not authorizing the consumption of drugs," said Senator Jorge Zermiño, the bill's sponsor in the Senate. "We are combating it and recognizing that there are addicts that require special treatment. We cannot close our eyes, nor fill our jails with addicts."

But opponents said the law would essentially legalize drug use and lead to more drug abuse and so help drug dealers.

"Here we are authorizing drug use," said Senator Miguel Ángel Navarro of the Party of the Democratic Revolution. "Whether it's a little or a lot, we are legalizing drug use. And I ask who is selling the drugs? Is it now legal to sell drugs in the eyes of the authorities? Clearly not."

The bill was approved as Mexico finds itself in the midst of a war between rival drug cartels that has claimed hundreds of lives, including dozens of police officers, particularly in the Texas border town of Nuevo Laredo and along the Pacific Coast between Acapulco and Zihuatanejo.

The violence has been only part of the social cost of the lucrative drug trade here. Twenty years ago Mexico used to be a country through which drugs passed on their way to Chicago, Los Angeles, New York and other major American cities.

These days, however, drug dealers and addicts have become more numerous in border towns and big cities. The growing local market for drugs has spurred higher levels of prostitution, robbery and burglary.

Local police forces have been hamstrung in their efforts to stop street-level dealing. Lacking the training and authority to investigate under the old law, they could arrest someone only if the person was caught in the act of selling drugs. Only the federal police could arrest someone for drug possession.

"The current law is unclear," said José Ángelo Cordova, the chairman of the health committee in the Chamber of Deputies. "If they don't catch the person selling it, they can't charge them with a crime."

[Dna]

... following in the footsteps of their President.

[Thom]

The legal changes will also decriminalize the possession of limited quantities of other drugs, including LSD, hallucinogenic mushrooms, amphetamines and peyote -- a psychotropic cactus found in Mexico's northern deserts.

I wonder what will be considered a criminal quantity of peyote, mushrooms, LSD etc.

Will thousands of young white US bourgeoisie begin crossing the border to drop acid?

[Isaiah Mpski]

Hey,
It's a great way to increase tourist traffic.
I predict Amsterdam is now yesterday.
I can't imagine the types of minds that came-up with and got this new law.Potentialy brilliant.Radical new approach to social control.
I'm going to apply for mexivan citizenship and get there as soon as possible.Suppliers won't be afraid to sell legal quantities of almost anything now.

Before now,everytime I even bought a joint in Mexico I was scared shitless.I heard about their Gott-dam jails and wanted no part of them.
And I've spent alot of time in Mexico-been going there over 40 years now and went to medical school there.

[Humming]

Ah, now this report makes sense! You might think 2 billion is a lot to pay for border control when we're losing the war in Iraq as it is... but I have a feeling that the government is considering this an investment, to cash in on when Mexico de-criminalizes...

Senate Diverts Iraq Funds to U.S.-Mexico Border
by David Welna
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=5364764

All Things Considered, April 26, 2006 · The Senate votes to strip nearly $2 billion from emergency funding for the war in Iraq, using the money instead to bolster security along the U.S.-Mexico border. Democrats criticized the Republican move to cut nearly three percent of the $72 billion meant mainly for the war in Iraq.

New Hamshire Republican Judd Gregg, who sponsored the amendment shifting military money to the U.S. border, said the Pentagon will decide where the funds should be cut. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said the vote for border security money may help move four or five Republicans into the ranks of those who support wider immigration legislation.

Republican and Democratic senators have spent weeks talking about the need for better border security as they've debated an immigration overhaul. So there was no argument about making a down payment of $1.9 billion on border security as part of a $106 billion dollar supplemental spending bill. The dispute was over how to pay for it.

[Dna]

Sorry, I don't understand you. How can this be an investment on the part of the US.

Rather, I see this as a weakening of US influence. Mexico has been emboldened by recent political trends in latin america, and is willing to try different and possibly more effective methods to control their drug problem.

[Humming]

"Sorry, I don't understand you. How can this be an investment on the part of the US."

What I meant is that after de-criminalization, drugs smuggling from Mexico into the U.S. will no doubt increase by a large margin. The more border police that there are to intercept the drugs, the more money that the U.S. government can make by confiscating property, legal fees, prison fees, etc.

So, ultimately, increasing border "security" is an investment in that sense.

However, I agree that this move will weaken the U.S. empire. It seems to me that removing 2 billion dollars worth of supplies and soldiers from Iraq is a really, really bad idea, from the perspective of someone who wants to "win" the war there...

[Dna]

Hi Humming,

I don't see how this will increase drug smuggling. 'Drug tourism' will increase. People will do their thing on the other side of the border. They will have safely 'let off steam' in Mexico, , and not come bring drugs back home.

Big-time drug smugglers into the U.S. will still be a problem and this is what the U.S. and Mexican government still want to tackle, even though the Mexicans have a somewhat more enlightened approach to tackling that problem.

I think it is too cynical to suggest that the U.S. gov't is running this one like a business. Doesn't make sense to me at any level.

Dna.

[Led_Zeppelin]

If you read these articles, the Mexican law is vague about decriminalization. From what I'm reading, the local police and judges can still throw your ass in jail even if you had quantities considered "personal use" per their rules. Local police can still arrest you for these small quantities at their discretion. A local judge would access whether or not you're an "addict". If you're not an addict by their own subjective opinions, you can get multi-year prison terms in a tijuana jail.

The cops would probably let you go after shaking you down for some $$.

I've had a friend go to a Tijuana jail. You don't want to be in a prison in Mexico. You'll get a lot of burritos going in and out of your ass on a daily basis, especially if you're a white guy.

[Dna]

So what is it then, - some kind of a whitewash.

I have always thought the best way to deal with the drug problem is to treat adiction as a MEDICAL problem and treat drug trafficing as a CRIMINAL problem.

Where can I read more about the law?

Dna.

[Axl Omega]

"It seems to me that removing 2 billion dollars worth of supplies and soldiers from Iraq is a really, really bad idea, from the perspective of someone who wants to "win" the war there..."

But the largest question still is, "Win what!" Apparently it is not the war on WMD's anymore - and so now it's an "insurgency problem"? Many experts could have told you years ago that this would be the main problem with disrupting that countries balance. Iraq has always been in the flux of a continuous civil war. By removing Hussein they only removed the protection against that thing happening.

[jezebelle]

. . . yea whatever

out on a limb here but

anyway I believe there are trends where north and south america will become more one america

but not nescessarily only limited to the left brain as everybody wants to pretend

a unification on many levels

great respect, jez