foxxy!

May 4, 2006 1:06 AM

Fox pussies out. Recently a bill passed in mexico legalizing all drugs under certain specified quantities. The bill was promoted By Vincente Fox's party, and came from his offices. However he decided not to sign it under U.S. pressure.

There go my vacation plans.
posted by Paris Hilton (57 comments total)

It was also criticized by authorities in Mexican tourist towns who worried about a flood of hard-partying U.S. thrill seekers attracted by the new, lenient rules.

See? It's your fault, Paris.
posted by brundlefly at 1:14 AM on May 4, 2006

nice tags
posted by Hat Maui at 1:50 AM on May 4, 2006

The DEA sure was worried. (Scroll down to the April 29 entries.)
posted by telstar at 1:51 AM on May 4, 2006

WOOooHooo, Cinco de Mayo!!
posted by hypersloth at 1:52 AM on May 4, 2006

It commemorates the victory of Mexican forces led by General Ignacio Zaragoza over the French expeditionary forces in the Battle of Puebla on May 5, 1862.

Sounds like a party.
/snark
posted by hypersloth at 1:54 AM on May 4, 2006

I think that current thinking around drugs testing is causing the problem. Drug tests should be made more like driving tests, when if you can prove that you can handle a particular drug correctly - you get a license to take that drug. Just as you do when you can prove you can handle a particular vehicle correctly.
posted by Samuel Farrow at 1:58 AM on May 4, 2006

That's not very hot at all.

Still, it's not like drugs are hard to actually get in Mexico or anything. Not *cough* that I'd know anything about it personally.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 2:10 AM on May 4, 2006

ketamine, not kitamine.
posted by ori at 2:22 AM on May 4, 2006

Yes - I had my hopes up, too.

Leave it to the assholes in charge of our benighted country to fuck it all up.
posted by rougy at 2:54 AM on May 4, 2006

I for one am glad this was not a link to a verminous genitalia page.
posted by biffa at 3:34 AM on May 4, 2006

Goddammit.
posted by meh at 3:35 AM on May 4, 2006

So it's back to bribing the cops when they catch you, is it?
posted by Space Coyote at 3:48 AM on May 4, 2006

Are you implying that the Mexican authorities are corrupt?
posted by Ryvar at 3:56 AM on May 4, 2006

Oh man, in the old days young W would have been sooo up for a road trip.
posted by R. Mutt at 4:11 AM on May 4, 2006

Drug tests should be made more like driving tests

So if after you do the meth in front of the state trooper, you're addicted and ready to sell your neighbor's TV for another hit, that's when you're told you won't be allowed to do it anymore?
posted by rxrfrx at 4:14 AM on May 4, 2006

They are not corrupt, it's just that traffic tickets are negotiable. That's a difference.

I mean, you can't really expect the cops to memorize all those different fines, and who doesn't understand that you can forget to carry your receipt block now and then.
posted by uncle harold at 4:15 AM on May 4, 2006

so... can we just settle this right here?
posted by Space Coyote at 4:25 AM on May 4, 2006

decided not to sign it under U.S. pressure. US sucks.
posted by dabitch at 4:35 AM on May 4, 2006

Fox pussies out

Funnily enough, this is also a headline in the latest issue of Yiff!: The Furry Fashion Quarterly.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 4:35 AM on May 4, 2006

Gotta say I saw this one coming. No way was the US about to let this happen without major pressure. Can't have Mexico getting all progressive and reasonable on us; it make might our draconian policies look irrational. [/bitter sarcasm]
posted by i_am_a_Jedi at 4:47 AM on May 4, 2006

I thought part of the law was you had to admit you were an addict.

In the US of A, your credit rating and criminal charges follow you about and make life a bit more difficult if you have not been a model taking out loans, telling people/companies that don't provide services and bill you to go take a hike and challenging people via court system....your life is made more expensive.

A public record of "I am an addict" will only be used against you.

Mexico has oil/gas...and the US has people sending money back to Mexico. Guess we know who is still in charge in this relationship. If the US kicks out the illegal Mexicans - I wonder how the power relationship shifts?
posted by rough ashlar at 5:15 AM on May 4, 2006

It really does show that US wears the pants in this relationship. It would suck to think you were a sovereign country in charge of your own destiny and then realize that a call from DC changes everything. Fox should have had the cajones to sign the law that was passed by elected members of congress. A law just last week he said he'd sign. I hope the details of just what sort of pressure the US laid on Mexico do come to light. It looks like Fox pretty much gave up the possibility of the PAN party keeping the president's office in July.

I thought part of the law was you had to admit you were an addict.

Actually, the current law had that as something the judge would consider if you were caught with drugs. Under the new law, that stipulation would have been removed.

It was also criticized by authorities in Mexican tourist towns who worried about a flood of hard-partying U.S. thrill seekers attracted by the new, lenient rules.

But these same towns have no issue with the hard-partying alcohol consuming tourists that are currently going to Mexico. Alcohol = tax revenue. Decriminalized drugs = no tax revenue. Except the millions brought in through tourism. The additional drug tourism wasn't going to be significant anyway.

And now Americans will can stay home and get high. Or they can go to Mexico like they always have -- except without the law, there's a chance of needing to pay a mordida when if the police show up.
posted by birdherder at 6:11 AM on May 4, 2006

I was so hoping they'd pass the law. I wanted to see what would happen. Now that Fox has shown he dances to Washington's tune, does he not make himself look like something less than he should? How will he make up for this?
posted by Goofyy at 6:24 AM on May 4, 2006

Have pity on Mexico, amigos.

So far from God.

So close to the United States.
posted by rdone at 6:33 AM on May 4, 2006

When it said Fox Pussies Out I figured they finally bent to pressure to yank the Family Guy Mohammed cartoon.
posted by surplus at 6:48 AM on May 4, 2006

It really does show that US wears the pants in this relationship. It would suck to think you were a sovereign country in charge of your own destiny and then realize that a call from DC changes everything. Fox should have had the cajones to sign the law that was passed by elected members of congress. A law just last week he said he'd sign. I hope the details of just what sort of pressure the US laid on Mexico do come to light. It looks like Fox pretty much gave up the possibility of the PAN party keeping the president's office in July.

The way this is getting spun in the US news is that "Fox buckled to pressure from Washington". The reality is substantially more complex.

Drugs are a REAL problem in some places in Mexico - not smoking joints, but the violent warfare between large narcotrafficers. It dominates some Mexican cities. The legislation itself was originally designed to strengthen enforcement. The part of the law that is getting all the attention is really a small piece - who's intention was merely to focus resources on dealers instead of street addicts ... they want addicts in treatment, not jail. Fox himself never intended to "decriminalize" drugs ... only to differentiate between casual users and dealers ... but as the legislation made its way through congress, the "table" got added that specified specific quantities ... with the result being a sort of de-facto decriminalization.

The law is a major piece of legislation, and it will pass in some form, it has now simply gotten sent back to congress for revisions. While the US was not happy about it - it probably would have gotten sent back even without US pressure - as it became clear what the law would do, a good number of Mexicans started getting upset about it as well.

It is not being perceived (in Mexico) as "Fox obeys the US", and is unlkely to have any effect on PAN's chances in July.
posted by MidasMulligan at 6:54 AM on May 4, 2006

Interesting. There is often debate up here whether the U.S. would "let" us decriminalize marijuana, which usually gets passed off as paranoid. Different dynamics, but not by much.
posted by dreamsign at 7:29 AM on May 4, 2006

And not that we have to worry about that anymore.
posted by dreamsign at 7:29 AM on May 4, 2006

Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War on Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore? It'll be just like that!
posted by StrasbourgSecaucus at 7:53 AM on May 4, 2006

Editorializing in posts is not appropriate.
posted by dios at 7:56 AM on May 4, 2006

Pants!

Rrrmmm, wear 'em. Yeah, baby. Wear those pants. Like you can, babe, like you can.

Mmm. Pants.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:56 AM on May 4, 2006

there's an "etiquette/policy" tab in Metatalk. take it there.
posted by StrasbourgSecaucus at 8:38 AM on May 4, 2006

there's an "etiquette/policy" tab in Metatalk.

No there isn't, you duplicitous bastard, you! Tabs? What are these tabs you speak of? Why do you deliberately mislead the newbs so brazenly? Why?
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:47 AM on May 4, 2006

Editorializing in posts is not appropriate.
posted by dios at 7:56 AM PST on May 4

Yes, all posts - especially those written up by members with with the names of brainless socialites - should have the quiet dignity and neutrality of a Murrow report.

I demand that we cut out all this foofaraw and fun immediately!
posted by Optimus Chyme at 9:01 AM on May 4, 2006

In the tags, you forgot "hookah."
posted by Simon! at 9:27 AM on May 4, 2006

MÉXICO.- El presidente Vicente Fox reaccionó ayer ante las críticas de Estados Unidos y vetó la ley que despenalizaba el consumo mínimo de drogas.

Antes de mediodía, en Washington, funcionarios de la Casa Blanca y del Departamento de Estado señalaron que se solicitó a México no promulgar una ley que en principio busca combatir el tráfico de drogas, pero que provoca una percepción opuesta.

This article from the Nuevo Laredo El Mañana indicates that it was pressure from the White House that got Mr. Fox to veto the bill. Damn liberal Mexican media! Sure, De La Vaca says it wasn't pressure from Washington, but it seemed more face saving.

The last poll I saw showed Obrador [Alliance] over Calderon [PAN] for president. Calderon was for the legislation.

Ninety five people have been killed so far this year by the narcotraficos in Nuevo Laredo. When I was there last week, the violence was on people's minds. The folks I spoke with supported the new law if it did help the larger drug trafficking problem. The only people that get busted for holding small amounts of drugs in NL are Americans that are being stupid or are being shaken down for mordida.
posted by birdherder at 10:01 AM on May 4, 2006

As long as they still have Donkey Shows, I'm there.
posted by bardic at 10:01 AM on May 4, 2006

MidasMulligan is right. It's a major misrepresentation to call this a "decriminalization bill".
posted by mr_roboto at 10:07 AM on May 4, 2006

No ether tag? Because, mmm, ether. It smells like happy!

Maybe the Mexicans will protest this. But the potheads will show up late, and the cokeheads will still be protesting at 4 in the morning... I don't know how that would work out.

"There is often debate up here whether the U.S. would "let" us decriminalize marijuana, which usually gets passed off as paranoid."

That right there is a ball of lol.
posted by Eideteker at 10:14 AM on May 4, 2006

But the potheads will show up late, and the cokeheads will still be protesting at 4 in the morning

The acidheads would spend the entire rally debating with the air-conditioner and losing and the e-tards would simply try and hug everyone into submission.
posted by jonmc at 10:28 AM on May 4, 2006

Canada, your turn.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 10:48 AM on May 4, 2006

Editorializing in posts is not appropriate.
posted by dios at 3:56 PM GMT on May 4

Regularly derailing threads, on the other hand, is just fine.
posted by kaemaril at 11:26 AM on May 4, 2006

So if after you do the meth in front of the state trooper, you're addicted and ready to sell your neighbor's TV for another hit, that's when you're told you won't be allowed to do it anymore?

it is that kind of ignorance that causes the problem, no matterr what Fox tells you, you can't get addicted to a drug the first time you take it. You can really like it and want to take it again, but it ain't an addiction.
posted by Samuel Farrow at 11:29 AM on May 4, 2006

When it said Fox Pussies Out I figured they finally bent to pressure to yank the Family Guy Mohammed cartoon.

Heh. I did too.

(I can't believe you spelled quaaludes right and not caffeine or ketamine ...)
posted by mrgrimm at 11:31 AM on May 4, 2006

So if after you do the meth in front of the state trooper, you're addicted and ready to sell your neighbor's TV for another hit, that's when you're told you won't be allowed to do it anymore?

...

it is that kind of ignorance that causes the problem, no matterr what Fox tells you, you can't get addicted to a drug the first time you take it.

I think you misread. He/she was referring to Samuel Farrow's comment about making people pass a test to be allowed to take drugs, i.e. if you were unable to control your addiction, you wouldn't pass. I actually like the idea, but it's not feasible (and would require some rather invasive testing)
posted by mrgrimm at 11:34 AM on May 4, 2006

(I can't believe you spelled quaaludes right and not caffeine or ketamine ...)

maybe he's frebaasing kokane.
posted by jonmc at 11:55 AM on May 4, 2006

birdherder: Calderon has overtaken AMLO in the polls this week & holds a statistically significant (i.e. larger than 2x the margin of error) lead. Some have credited AMLO's fall to his spats with Fox and not participating in the first debate last week, which Calderon and Madrazo spun as his arrogance.
posted by donpedro at 12:08 PM on May 4, 2006

MidasMulligan : "Fox himself never intended to 'decriminalize' drugs"

Not in practice, anyway.
posted by Gyan at 12:16 PM on May 4, 2006

“Fox pussies out

Funnily enough, this is also a headline in the latest issue of Yiff!: The Furry Fashion Quarterly.”

That was damn funny PinkStainlessTail
posted by Smedleyman at 12:53 PM on May 4, 2006

Thanks donpedro. The article I read about the presidential poll was from when I was in MTY a few weeks ago.
posted by birdherder at 1:18 PM on May 4, 2006

Can someone explain why this has a wii tag? Is Nintendo doing something suspicious with their upcoming home console that I don't know about?

Gotta say I saw this one coming. No way was the US about to let this happen without major pressure. Can't have Mexico getting all progressive and reasonable on us; it make might our draconian policies look irrational.

That pretty much nails it.
posted by kosher_jenny at 1:19 PM on May 4, 2006

You're welcome. Calderon's surge in the polls is very recent. Reuters, from yesterday. Doesn't mention the margin of error, but it was 2.3 percentage points. In case it's relevant, the poll was conducted by Reforma, considered to lean center-left and be one of Mexico's more respected newspapers along with center-right El Universal. Also I should amend my previous comment to say that while all the polls give Calderon an edge these days, they disagree over how much. In a recent survey by the Milenio newspaper, for example, the two candidates were statistically tied given the margin of error.

Oh wait, we were, like, talking about drug policy or something weren't we? Sorry for the horse-race tangent, folks.
posted by donpedro at 2:22 PM on May 4, 2006

Fox's refusal is being portrayed as him being unhappy with the bill sent to him by congress. But other sources seem to be saying that the bill originated from Fox himself. I suppose now that the media darkness has decended, we'll never really know.
posted by telstar at 2:29 PM on May 4, 2006

telstar, do we know each other?
posted by donpedro at 7:08 PM on May 4, 2006

Fox should have had the cajones to sign the law that was passed by elected members of congress.

He should have had the large boxes?
posted by signal at 8:11 PM on May 4, 2006

Fox never intended this to become law. It's simply a way to manipulate their big northern brother into giving Mexico something they want. Almost a 'or I'll hold my breath and turn blue' sort of manipulation. Sad thing is, it'll probably work.
posted by gregor-e at 6:57 AM on May 5, 2006

telstar, that DEA Watch link is wiiiild. Do you have a sense of how reliable those reports are?
posted by Embryo at 12:00 PM on May 5, 2006