Mexico Considers Decriminalizing Pot, Cocaine & More (merged) (Updated 2/12/07)

The Los Angeles Times today ran an anti-drug editorial hit piece as news on the front page, upper-right-hand column. I.e., this was the top news story.

Here's the first part of their "news" article:

Mexico to Allow Use of Drugs

Fox will sign the bill, one of the world's most permissive policies, in a bid to curb trafficking. U.S. officials say it will lead to more addiction.
By Sam Enriquez, Times Staff Writer
May 3, 2006

MEXICO CITY — Mexican President Vicente Fox will sign a bill that would legalize the use of nearly every drug and narcotic sold by the same Mexican cartels he's vowed to fight during his five years in office, a spokesman said Tuesday.

The list of illegal drugs approved for personal consumption by Mexico's Congress last week is enough to make one dizzy — or worse.

Cocaine. Heroin. LSD. Marijuana. PCP. Opium. Synthetic opiates. Mescaline. Peyote. Psilocybin mushrooms. Amphetamines. Methamphetamines.

And the per-person amounts approved for possession by anyone 18 or older could easily turn any college party into an all-nighter: half a gram of coke, a couple of Ecstasy pills, several doses of LSD, a few marijuana joints, a spoonful of heroin, 5 grams of opium and more than 2 pounds of peyote, the hallucinogenic cactus.

The law would be among the most permissive in the world, putting Mexico in the company of the Netherlands. Critics, including U.S. drug policy officials, already are worrying that it will spur a domestic addiction problem and make Mexico a narco-tourism destination.

Even the Netherlands, famous for coffeehouses that sell small quantities of potent marijuana and hashish, forbids the possession and sale of narcotics. Colombia allows personal use of marijuana, cocaine and heroin, but not LSD or PCP.
...

The rest is available on www.latimes.com.

They ran a follow-up article on their website later today:

Legalizing Drug Use in Mexico Called 'Reckless'
By Sam Enriquez and Tony Perry, Times Staff Writers
10:47 AM PDT, May 3, 2006

SAN DIEGO -- A move in Mexico to legalize narcotics represents a serious danger to the United States, Mayor Jerry Sanders said today.

The move by the Mexican Congress to allow possession of drugs that are illegal in the United States is "appalling, reckless and incredibly dangerous," said Sanders, the city's former police chief.

He said he fears that Americans will travel to Mexico to buy drugs and then return to the United States — in many cases through San Diego, which faces Tijuana across the border.

The mayor said he has written to President Bush and Mexican President Vicente Fox to express his opposition. The measure constitutes a "hostile action by a long-time ally of our country," Sanders said.
...

Why is the L.A. Times fear-mongering like this? Why does it lump marijuana and LSD in with meth and heroin? Why is there not one response from anyone who believes legalization could help society's ills, including the legalization of drugs like heroin and crack? This is "reporting" at its worst. I can imagine similar articles were published by German newspapers in the 1930s creating fear of Jews.

Could it be that the L.A. Times's parent, Tribune Co., owns many television stations, thus they receive major advertising revenue from alcoholic beverage companies? And/or that they are completely establishment-oriented, devoid of any true journalistic ethics, and only serve to create sheep that support this country's ruling class?
 
Last edited:
^yep. seems it COULD be used as a way to squeeze more bribes out of foreigners.

now my take on it, tho, is this is a bid to increase TOURISM. instead of shipping all those drugs across the border, they want americans to cross on over and buy the drugs in Mexico.

My problem with the whole thing is simply that there does not appear to be any legal way to purchase those drugs. Therefore there will be no oversight, and we'll be left buying the same crappy brickweed and shitty meth laden pills as usual.

I do think tho, that once mexico hears those cash registers ringing, they'll be setting up coffee shops and apothecaries ASAP.

but for now, im not scrambling to mexico to buy 2 shitty pills i can get here anyways.
 
Keep in mind, that a 1/2 gram of "real" cocaine will last nearly half a day. Unlike the speedy ass crap you get here, you can easily consume an 8 ball per day and hate every minute of it.

I just hope that the drugs they offer are of pharmacuetical grade. Does anyone know if they'll be produced by pharmacuetical companies or not?

And the whole thing about producing more addicts is just typical Washington bureacratic bullshit! I'd really like to know the actual % of people who don't do drugs, just because they're illegal. I'll bet it's less than 1%.

If you want to do them, you'll do them, regardless of whether or not they're illegal.
 
Last edited:
You know what, good for Mexico. I hope that they're allowed to get on with it and don't let the draconian usa government stop them.

Honestly i think the LA times article was written by someone of ill-information. Legislation to allow the personal use of narcotics will allow the mexican government to focus on the gangs that they have been trying to take down. The legalisation will also take some money out of the organisations hands (obviously not much but hey it's better than nothing).

So yer, it's a step in the right direction.
 
Does anyone know if they'll be produced by pharmaceutical companies or not?
Click to expand...

They are trying to legalize 'personal use' . I don't see how this will have much effect on the supply side of the market at all. You sure as hell are not going to find a heroin factory in downtown TJ. Nor a pot cafe. These are still strictly forbidden according to the law (if not more so after the bill is passed).

To top it off.... I doubt very much that the local PD's are going to carry around milligram scales. My guess it that getting caught with drugs in Mexico will still = bad news for gringos not willing to pay off the cops. The whole move (while a step in the right direction) sounds more symbolic politically than anything.
 
Bad news:

Mexico's President Refuses to sign Decriminalization bill

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/americ...xico.drugs.ap/

"Mexico's Fox balks at signing drug law

Under U.S. pressure, president backs off decriminalization bill


Wednesday, May 3, 2006; Posted: 10:17 p.m. EDT (02:17 GMT)

var clickExpire = "06/2/2006";
MEXICO CITY, Mexico (AP) -- Mexican President Vicente Fox backed off a bill that would have decriminalized possession of small amounts of drugs, sending it back to Congress for changes rather than signing it into law.


The announcement late Wednesday came after U.S. officials urged Mexico to tighten the proposed law "to prevent drug tourism." On Tuesday, Fox's spokesman had said he would sign the bill.

Fox will ask "Congress to make the needed corrections to make it absolutely clear in our country, the possession of drugs and their consumption are, and will continue to be, a criminal offense," according to a statement from the president's office released Wednesday.

The measure, which was passed Friday by Mexico's Congress, drew a storm of criticism because it eliminates criminal penalties for possession of small amounts of heroin, methamphetamine and PCP, as well as marijuana and cocaine.

Congress has adjourned for the summer, and when it comes back it will have an entirely new lower house and one-third new Senate members following the July 2 elections, which will also make Fox a lame duck.

However, Sen. Jorge Zermeno of Fox's conservative National Action Party -- a supporter of the bill -- said he thought Congress would be open to changing the legislation to delete a clause that extends to all drug "consumers" the exemption from prosecution that was originally meant to cover only recognized drug addicts.

"The word 'consumer' can be eliminated so that the only exemption clause would be for drug addicts," Zermeno told The Associated Press. "There's still time to get this through."

The bill contained many points that experts said were positive. It empowered state and local police -- not just federal officers -- to go after drug dealers, stiffened some penalties and closed loopholes that dealers had long used to escape prosecution.

But the broad decriminalization clause was what soured many -- both in Mexico and abroad -- to the proposal.

Earlier Wednesday, U.S. Embassy spokeswoman Judith Bryan said that "U.S. officials expressed their opposition to legalization or decriminalization of narcotics in any country" and "urged Mexican representatives to review the legislation urgently, to avoid the perception that drug use would be tolerated
in Mexico, and to prevent drug tourism."

Some U.S. officials have expressed concern that the measure could increase drug use by border visitors and U.S. students who flock to Mexico on vacation.

Bryan said the U.S. government wants Mexico "to ensure that all persons found in possession of any quantity of illegal drugs be prosecuted or be sent into mandatory drug treatment programs."

Mexico's top police official, Eduardo Medina Mora, acknowledged on Tuesday that the U.S. anti-drug agency has expressed concern about the law.

Some senators and community leaders in Mexico also objected to the bill. But even if it had been signed, Medina Mora noted that Mexican cities have the power to impose fines and overnight jail detentions for those caught with drugs in public.

Medina Mora said legislators had changed Fox's original proposal by inserting a controversial table laying out maximum amounts of drugs for "personal use," including cocaine, heroin, marijuana and ecstasy.

Current Mexican law allows judges latitude to drop charges if suspects can prove they are addicts and the quantity they were caught with is small enough to be considered "for personal use," or if they are first-time offenders.

The new bill would have made the decriminalization automatic, allowed "consumers" as well as addicts to have drugs, and delineated specific allowable quantities, which do not appear in the current law.

Under the law, consumers could have legally possessed up to 25 milligrams of heroin, 5 grams of marijuana (about one-fifth of an ounce, or about four joints), or 0.5 grams of cocaine -- the equivalent of about four "lines," or half the standard street-sale quantity.

The law also laid out allowable quantities for a large array of other drugs, including LSD, MDA, MDMA (ecstasy, about two pills' worth), and amphetamines.


Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed."
 
grandbaby said:
Bad news:

Mexico's President Refuses to sign Decriminalization bill

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/americ...xico.drugs.ap/

"Mexico's Fox balks at signing drug law

Under U.S. pressure, president backs off decriminalization bill


Wednesday, May 3, 2006; Posted: 10:17 p.m. EDT (02:17 GMT)

var clickExpire = "06/2/2006";
MEXICO CITY, Mexico (AP) -- Mexican President Vicente Fox backed off a bill that would have decriminalized possession of small amounts of drugs, sending it back to Congress for changes rather than signing it into law.


The announcement late Wednesday came after U.S. officials urged Mexico to tighten the proposed law "to prevent drug tourism." On Tuesday, Fox's spokesman had said he would sign the bill.

Fox will ask "Congress to make the needed corrections to make it absolutely clear in our country, the possession of drugs and their consumption are, and will continue to be, a criminal offense," according to a statement from the president's office released Wednesday.

The measure, which was passed Friday by Mexico's Congress, drew a storm of criticism because it eliminates criminal penalties for possession of small amounts of heroin, methamphetamine and PCP, as well as marijuana and cocaine.

Congress has adjourned for the summer, and when it comes back it will have an entirely new lower house and one-third new Senate members following the July 2 elections, which will also make Fox a lame duck.

However, Sen. Jorge Zermeno of Fox's conservative National Action Party -- a supporter of the bill -- said he thought Congress would be open to changing the legislation to delete a clause that extends to all drug "consumers" the exemption from prosecution that was originally meant to cover only recognized drug addicts.

"The word 'consumer' can be eliminated so that the only exemption clause would be for drug addicts," Zermeno told The Associated Press. "There's still time to get this through."

The bill contained many points that experts said were positive. It empowered state and local police -- not just federal officers -- to go after drug dealers, stiffened some penalties and closed loopholes that dealers had long used to escape prosecution.

But the broad decriminalization clause was what soured many -- both in Mexico and abroad -- to the proposal.

Earlier Wednesday, U.S. Embassy spokeswoman Judith Bryan said that "U.S. officials expressed their opposition to legalization or decriminalization of narcotics in any country" and "urged Mexican representatives to review the legislation urgently, to avoid the perception that drug use would be tolerated
in Mexico, and to prevent drug tourism."

Some U.S. officials have expressed concern that the measure could increase drug use by border visitors and U.S. students who flock to Mexico on vacation.

Bryan said the U.S. government wants Mexico "to ensure that all persons found in possession of any quantity of illegal drugs be prosecuted or be sent into mandatory drug treatment programs."

Mexico's top police official, Eduardo Medina Mora, acknowledged on Tuesday that the U.S. anti-drug agency has expressed concern about the law.

Some senators and community leaders in Mexico also objected to the bill. But even if it had been signed, Medina Mora noted that Mexican cities have the power to impose fines and overnight jail detentions for those caught with drugs in public.

Medina Mora said legislators had changed Fox's original proposal by inserting a controversial table laying out maximum amounts of drugs for "personal use," including cocaine, heroin, marijuana and ecstasy.

Current Mexican law allows judges latitude to drop charges if suspects can prove they are addicts and the quantity they were caught with is small enough to be considered "for personal use," or if they are first-time offenders.

The new bill would have made the decriminalization automatic, allowed "consumers" as well as addicts to have drugs, and delineated specific allowable quantities, which do not appear in the current law.

Under the law, consumers could have legally possessed up to 25 milligrams of heroin, 5 grams of marijuana (about one-fifth of an ounce, or about four joints), or 0.5 grams of cocaine -- the equivalent of about four "lines," or half the standard street-sale quantity.

The law also laid out allowable quantities for a large array of other drugs, including LSD, MDA, MDMA (ecstasy, about two pills' worth), and amphetamines.


Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed."
Click to expand...


Well, there went my day. :(

I was already looking into vacation packages.....................:p
 
Le Junk said:
Well, there went my day. :(

I was already looking into vacation packages.....................:p
Click to expand...

Actually, drug tourism is exactly what was NOT needed. They shouldn't change it from drug consumers to only drug addicts, they should change it to only Mexicans!

Nothing against you, Le Junk, but if loads of Americans crossed the border to use drugs, it would ruin the Mexicans' program. Mexico would become known as a drug haven, and the drug tourism would bring with it new social problems. Other countries would see this and reinforce their own drug laws. Instead, what is needed is to show that Mexico benefits from drug decriminalization. Then it's more likely to happen elsewhere, and even here one day.
 
ah shit.
i was just getting excited about the 5 grams of opium (which i think is one of the best deals of the bill).

but

there are (were?) some valid problems that people brought up.
i'm gonna sit on the fence and say "we shall see"

whatever, it's a positive if anything actually passes.
 
What a pussy. Completely wimped out. Im sure the US made some real big threats to him to get him to back out on this one with so much of thier govt behind it. So sad.
 
So.....Mexico is like a nearer Netherlands right? oh wait its even better than the netherlands , it decriminalizes coke and H too right? FFS.

I wonder if the illegal aliens in the usa would want to come back to mexico ( Muahahahha )

edit : bill not passed? oh nvm what I wrote then... ; )
 
Last edited:
well there you have it....Fox is not going to sign the bill now. theres a fuckin surprise. perhaps the whole thing was a ploy to have mexico flex its muscle to show the bush administration not to screw them over with the immigration legislation.

oh well, no cancun trip.
 
OOOOhhhh look Vicente Fox is getting ass raped by the USA government Deliverance style!!!!!!! Squeel like a pig!!!! Cmon now Squeel!!!! Squeel for me8)

(If you havent seen the movie Deliverance you wont understand that comment)
 
MikeyLikesE said:
perhaps the whole thing was a ploy to have mexico flex its muscle to show the bush administration not to screw them over with the immigration legislation.
Click to expand...

even tho i know this is pure speculation, i feel there is some kind of truth behind this statement... after all, passing that kind of bill just now did require some keen timing...
 
what a shame,i was hoping this might eventually lead to the end of america defoliating columbia:(

also as a tucsonan i have to say to all the people who were gung ho about going to mexico.even if this law had passed.its not the joints in your car you have to worry about,its the taillight on your car thats out.well when you get out of the car it will be working fine,but the police will tell you it was out when they pulled you over.so you will have to decide wether to have it impounded or take care of the matter right there with your wallet.never ever go into mexico with a party mentality.you need to be careful
 
Kremar said:
even tho i know this is pure speculation, i feel there is some kind of truth behind this statement... after all, passing that kind of bill just now did require some keen timing...
Click to expand...

I defenitely agree with that, i was telling some people the same thing. This whole thing could'nt have come at a better time as far as their immigration battle was concerned.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top