Guess where my next vacation's going to be.
"Mexico's Congress on Friday approved a bill decriminalizing possession of small quantities of marijuana, ecstasy, cocaine and even heroin for personal use, prompting U.S. criticism that the measure could harm anti-drug efforts.
The only step remaining was the signature of President Vicente Fox, whose office indicated he would sign the bill, which Mexican officials hope will allow police to focus on large-scale trafficking operations rather than minor drug busts." (cnn)
posted by Dody G. at 4:15 PM
10 Comments:
Being mexican, I think this is a huge step forward in a topic that had been discussed for ages in the congress. It needed to move to any direction.
I am not sure if the american government would really appreciate this as a positive decision for the fight against drugs, and as well the mexican government should really think of educating its citizens regarding the use of drugs and its consequences, rather than just campaigning on prohibition. My question for Mexico would be more like: Are we, as citizens, ready to take responsibility over this "legalization"?
In an ideal state I would really like to see it working as it works in The Netherlands, in which I think it did represent the right solution for a country with a mature society.
I think I have seen more German and Belgian (actually foreigners from all around) young people trying to smugle drugs back to their country than Dutch smoking joints. Will we have waves of young americans crossing the borders?
9:13 PM
this law will improve the situation for people that like to get high in both countries. since most drugs coming from mexico to the US come in large quantities in large trucks, ultimately managed by large violent organizations, this will make drug dealing a less dangerous profession; the lower entry barrier makes it more difficult for mafias to control distribution. small and medium size smuggling operations, which don't have the resources to corrupt american customs agents, will grow in number and will take a larger share of the market, perhaps decreasing corruption
10:53 AM
as a mexican, i say long live spring break '97
4:04 PM
I always thought of myself as a liberal guy, but the last couple postings on here (and the responses) really surprise me.
The people on this site aren't concerned about decriminalizing cocaine and heroin? HEROIN?? Does it really need to be easier to create junkies?
People think that graffiti is ok as long as it looks nice? What is graffiti? Spray paint on the subway walls? What about acid-based solutions that ruin the windows of Starbucks? Or the people who trash a Hummer on the street?
I think that both legalizing "small amounts of...heroin and cocaine" and, theoretically, standing up for the "free speech rights" of vandals are irresponsible decisions from an economic point of view.
If even one person gets hooked on heroin that was more readily accessible because of the decriminalization of a "small amount", it is likely that they will either a) eventually require drug treatment or b) not be as productive a citizen as they would have been without the heroin. (I'm making assumptions, but I don't think they're leaps). Thus, society loses someone who could contribute and we're all a little worse off.
As to graffiti, let's assume that vandals are given "free speech rights" to create "art" on the windows of a locally owned bodega. Assuming they don't want "Neckface" written on the side of their business, they'll have to pay to have it cleaned and repainted. Because of this additional business cost, they have to increase their prices on the goods they sell, making each of us pay a little more than we would have sans graffiti.
Maybe I'm reading these postings or the responses wrongly (or maybe I'm just getting old), but I'm really surprised at the accepting response to these two stories by this community...
4:22 PM
If you are concerned about drug consumption in Mexico and its development visit:
http://www.salud.gob.mx/unidades/cdi/documentos/CDM.htm
6:11 PM
Jim you are getting old
6:51 PM
graffiti artists indirectly create a lot of the forms of advertising we see today. for example, the idea of placing advertisements on the sides of buses was a concept taken from graffiti artists as they are the ones who began writing on the sides of them.
it's a great form of art. it sends a message out that's more real than anything else we find. an ugly billboard by my apartment featured a naked abercrombie guy for several months and until an artist wrote "we are waiting for something to change" on it, the image was replaced with something else.
9:46 PM
and as with drugs, as well as graffiti, it's going to happen, let's learn how to deal with it.
9:56 PM
wasn't it replaced with 3 semi-naked Abercrombie guys?
In some cases, graffiti is a great art form, thought-provoking and interesting, but that doesn't validate forcing business owners to pay to cover up the graffiti artist's opinion. In most cases I think graffiti says very little, like the person who has tagged half of Madison with "TRILL"...nobody gets it, it means nothing and makes no statement.
Either way, I'm not sure a person's right to vandalize is a good comparison to a person's right to do drugs.
11:34 PM
I think the point with "descriminalization" of drugs use in Mexico is not really meaning that people have the right, or that anyone thinks everyone should do drugs or that it is ok.
I think it is a measure taken to get a better control of the use of them, for people to do it in a more responsible way, and on the other hand to reduce the violence on the streets caused by the cartels that fight for power or the right for a particular path or channel to transport drugs in big quantities to the US.
For example, you can read as well this law's restrictions; for example carrying or using drugs close to a school (x amount of meters) is still considered a felony.
12:30 AM
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home