Mexico grows up

August 23, 2009 6:52 AM

Just as quietly as when they first voted on this, the Mexican government has decriminalized the possession of drugs for personal use. Associated Press's take. The official decree. Despite the understated release of the information, this is a sea change in Mexican policy and could very well be the beginning of a change in U.S. policy as well.
posted by Cobalt (82 comments total)

I wish.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 7:02 AM on August 23, 2009

Nice neutral title there, eh?

(Whatever, I agree wholeheartedly.)
posted by nebulawindphone at 7:06 AM on August 23, 2009

Great, we're officially surrounded by places that have better drug policies than us.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 7:23 AM on August 23, 2009 [7 favorites]

Hoorah for freedom and sanity! Get on the bus, America, it is never too late to come back to reality.
posted by Meatbomb at 7:24 AM on August 23, 2009

Nice work, Mexico!
posted by Pope Guilty at 7:39 AM on August 23, 2009

Oh, I'm now sure that they'll legalize pot within a few years. The dam is broken.

Will there be apologies to the millions of people whose lives have been ruined? Of course not.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 7:41 AM on August 23, 2009 [1 favorite]

We hate their freedom!
posted by Obscure Reference at 7:44 AM on August 23, 2009 [7 favorites]

If I was fighting a glorified civil war against a drug economy I'd want to focus on the armed guys too. But I wouldn't be at all surprised if the next President is effectively a Zeta/Cartel man...they are proceeding up the political ranks.
posted by jaduncan at 7:51 AM on August 23, 2009

Great, we're officially surrounded by places that have better drug policies than us.

Indeed. The drug laws in The Kingdom Of Mighty Neptune are tough but fair. Hail Atlantis!
posted by The Whelk at 8:00 AM on August 23, 2009 [16 favorites]

The maximum amount of marijuana for "personal use" under the new law is 5 grams — the equivalent of about four joints. The limit is a half gram for cocaine, the equivalent of about 4 "lines."

AP wants to know if we have a "friend" in Mexico that can "hook us up" when they go down to Puerto Vallarta.
posted by geoff. at 8:04 AM on August 23, 2009 [1 favorite]

The drug laws in The Kingdom Of Mighty Neptune are tough but fair.

Do not speak, dare not to cast your eyes upon His bounty!
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 8:07 AM on August 23, 2009 [2 favorites]

Here's NORML's take. Key point, in addition to commercial production and distribution still being illegal:

"The private possession of cannabis in quantities under “four joints” will no longer be a criminal offense, but the marijuana will continue to be classified as contraband (and therefore seized by police), and the user will be strongly urged to seek drug treatment (or coerced to do so if it is one’s third ‘offense.’)"

A good start, sure. But a very useful plant that anyone with a seed, some water, and sunlight could grow remains mostly illegal.
posted by uaudio at 8:08 AM on August 23, 2009 [1 favorite]

Sounds like if anything this will strengthen the cartels, as it just increases demand but keeps the supply controlled.
posted by crapmatic at 8:16 AM on August 23, 2009 [2 favorites]

The LSD limit is only 15 micrograms. That's a single tiny dose. Wikipedia gives 20 micrograms as the threshold dose.
posted by Obscure Reference at 8:30 AM on August 23, 2009

I'm disappointed that many in the US media are saying Mexico legalized drugs for personal use. Then again, maybe I'm still expecting too much from them.

This doesn't mean that Tijuana and Reynosa will become drug tourist destinations. It is still illegal buy and sell drugs there. A business that allows drug commerce can still be shut down. You can still get arrested for having drugs on your person. The cops will still take your drugs away. You can't possess drugs in any quantity within 300 meters of a school, police station or other government building. It isn't Amsterdam. As the article mentions, many local prosecutors didn't charge people with possession anyway so this is just normalizing the enforcement across the Republic. If anything, it will help lessen the bribes and coercion for people with these small amounts of drugs.

A somewhat common tactic for ratero cops looking for bribes was to plant a small amount of drugs on someone and then telling the person they could enjoy the Mexican penal system or pay a mordita and go on their way. A few friends have had this happen to them. Perhaps this new law will reduce that, but the dirty cops fishing for bribes have other methods to extract bribes.

Still, I applaud the Mexican government for realizing the consumers of the drugs aren't criminals. Hopefully it is sincere in its pledge to help those who are addicts get clean. It is the narcotraficantes moving $30-$50 billion of product into the US each year that is the problem. That problem won't be solved until the US comes to grip with its drug problem.

The only difference I've seen this time from President Fox's attempt to pass this law years ago was that this time the US State Department and/or President didn't intervene. So in that case, US policy appears to have progressed a little. Considering Obama met with Calderon just a week or so ago this had to have had come up in their discussion.
posted by birdherder at 8:40 AM on August 23, 2009 [7 favorites]

It isn't Amsterdam.

No, but the enterprising entrepreneur with the right contacts and the right bribery structure could make "Tijuana Coffee Shop" a reality. Wait and see, it will happen.
posted by Meatbomb at 8:52 AM on August 23, 2009 [1 favorite]

I wish I could say otherwise, but this isn't going to put a dent in Mexico's drug-violence problem. The main source of violence within Mexico is for control over trafficking routes into -- dun dun dunnnnnnnnn -- the United States, where all manner of substances are still highly illegal and probably will be for most of our lifetimes.

When you also consider the fact that the Mexican government and police force are hopelessly corrupt (local police officers hiring themselves out as hitmen for the cartels -- the Mexican Attorney General publicly estimates that 1/5th of his officers are currently under criminal investigation, etc.)

Nothing is going to change in Mexico until 1) There is One Cartel which controls everything and everybody, or 2) Drugs are largely decriminalized across the US. I'll leave it to you to guess which will happen first.
posted by Avenger at 9:07 AM on August 23, 2009 [2 favorites]

But Meatbomb, that happens already. This law wasn't holding up those entrepreneurs at all. Again, it is still illegal to sell dope and a business that does so risks getting shut down. I don't see an 'official' coffeehouse like those in Amsterdam gracing Av Revolucion in Tijuana any time soon. Away from the tourist area I'm sure there's local bars that have had dope for sale off the menu for years.

That doesn't stop an enterprising masero from asking if a customer wants a hookup with coca or mota but you can't do it openly. Pretty much like every else in the world.

I would think that a legitimate coffeehouse would come about in Tijuana once marijuana is actually legalized and the city can tax and license the coffeehouses like they do with the other vices (bars and prostitution) in the city.

This might be a more viable concept farther off the grid. One of my favorite places is a little surfing town in Oaxaca state where there's always the smell of pot smoke in the air. That place didn't need a change in the law.

One thing I wonder if Mexico will allow the sale of medical marijuana legally like is done in California. All those farmacias right at the border in Tijuana will add 420 signs to their Viagra, Lipitor, Plavix, and other pharmaceuticals to their storefronts.
posted by birdherder at 9:23 AM on August 23, 2009

I doubt this will do much to curb police corruption. For this to work, people caught with drugs for personal use have to know it's been decriminalized AND the cops have to obey this law. Where / to whom does someone go when the cops ask for a bribe in spite of the law?

Isn't the problem more with the corrupt cops than with the letter of the law?
posted by kjars at 9:24 AM on August 23, 2009

...half gram for cocaine, the equivalent of about 4 "lines."
From what I know of drugs, those would be four pretty huge rails. I think they might need to fact check on this one, or my college friends were really cheap dilettantes that weren't doing it right.
posted by Antidisestablishmentarianist at 9:28 AM on August 23, 2009 [1 favorite]

This doesn't mean that Tijuana and Reynosa will become drug tourist destinations. It is still illegal buy and sell drugs there. A business that allows drug commerce can still be shut down. You can still get arrested for having drugs on your person. The cops will still take your drugs away. You can't possess drugs in any quantity within 300 meters of a school, police station or other government building. It isn't Amsterdam.

Actually, most of that IS Amsterdam. It IS illegal to buy and sell drugs in the Netherlands, there is just openly selective enforcement of those laws. Strictly speaking, what goes on in the coffeeshops is illegal.

From the Netherlands Justice Department website:
Cannabis is niet legaal
Wiet, marihuana en hashishzijn minder slecht voor de gezondheid dan harddrugs. Maar ze zijn even illegaal. Cannabisstaat op lijst II van de Opiumwet evenals GHB en enkele andere stoffen. Dat betekent dat alle handelingen met betrekking tot deze drugs strafbaar zijn, zoals handel (import/export), verkoop, productie en bezit van softdrugs. Ook cannabis kopen van een straatdealer of een vriend is strafbaar. Het gebruik van drugs is niet strafbaar.

"Cannabis is not legal.
"Remember, weed, marijuana and hashish are not as bad for you as hard drugs, but they are still illegal. Cannabis is on List II of the Opium Act, as well as GHB and some other substances. That means that all actions with these drugs are illegal, including the trade (import/export), sale and production of soft drugs. Buying cannabis from a street dealer or a friend is illegal. The use of drugs is not illegal."

I know almost all MeFites are fluent in Dutch, but I thought I'd help out the tiny minority who aren't.

I don't see details on the "personal use" amounts there on the NJD site, but that would seem to be its form. Small amounts that are not being traded or sold are not the concern of law enforcement, so one won't get stopped and carted off to jail for having a few joints. But they will confiscate any plants you grow, though they won't arrest you for five or less, and they do pursue traffickers and dealers. They have simply made it a policy not to pursue coffeeshop owners (even though their supply is illegal) and have been very open about this fact.
posted by el_lupino at 9:36 AM on August 23, 2009 [1 favorite]

I wonder how this is going to affect the sixth season of Weeds.
posted by hippybear at 9:36 AM on August 23, 2009 [6 favorites]

The maximum amount of marijuana for "personal use" under the new law is 5 grams — the equivalent of about four joints.

Those are some big ass joints - over a gram each!
posted by smartypantz at 10:08 AM on August 23, 2009 [3 favorites]

I am conflicted about drug decriminalization.

On one hand, I don't think it makes sense, from an economic and moral stance, to send people to prison for small amounts of drugs for personal use. I also think the war on drugs is a racist, classist war that has done great harm to society.

On the other hand, I do realize that many drugs are addictive, dangerous, and can poison society. Addiction is a serious disease that many people never recover from. I have seen too many people take that first hit of heroin or meth and are never able to put it down no matter how hard they try.

The fact that drugs are illegal sold on a black market means that many people will never cross that line and do that first hit of coke, heroin, or meth. The laws against drug use also create severe consequences (perhaps too severe) for the addict, which can eventually make him or her too exhausted to continue using.

I do think decriminalization of hard drugs would be a disaster in this country. It would remove the criminal stigma and would likely breed a whole new crop of addicts who would never have touched the stuff to begin with.
posted by Acromion at 10:12 AM on August 23, 2009 [2 favorites]

el_lupino: They have simply made it a policy not to pursue coffeeshop owners (even though their supply is illegal) and have been very open about this fact.

Which is 180 degrees away from the Calderon administration on this issue. Now whether with time municipalities like Tijuana will selectively decide to allow coffeehouses to exist remains to be seen (just as prostitution is illegal in Mexico but tolerated and regulated in 'zonas de tolerancia'). But this law, in and of itself does not make open up any doors to allow coffeehouse-type establishments.

If anything, I'd see coffeehouses spring up in the DF before the border cities. Especially given Mexico's northern neighbor.

kjars: I doubt this will do much to curb police corruption. For this to work, people caught with drugs for personal use have to know it's been decriminalized AND the cops have to obey this law. Where / to whom does someone go when the cops ask for a bribe in spite of the law?



Exactly. In Mexico cops can search you at any time without probable cause to look for contraband. This law doesn't change that. It just means that if the person had the personal use amount on their person, they won't get charged for possession. A corrupt cop doesn't need a particular statute to shake someone down. Carrying weapons is illegal in Mexico. I know guys that had to pay a bribe because they were caught with nail clippers with that little nail file on them. The alternative to paying the cop to make the problem go away is to go to the police station and wait in jail before your case is heard before a judge. You may never be formally charged and the judge may dismiss your case, but you spent time in jail. As the news articles say, in many cases people with small amounts of drugs weren't being prosecuted for possession before this law, it just makes this uniform across the country. Since the law requires third time offenders to get treatment, this means that the arrest will go on your record.

Like I said above, often corrupt police will plant drugs on someone during their search of their car/person and in these cases it seems they'll need a bigger bag of dope in order to extract a bribe. And even with a small amount the cop can say "it looks like more than 1/2 gram to me!" and you're off to the station.
posted by birdherder at 10:17 AM on August 23, 2009 [1 favorite]

Metafilter really knows its metric system, I'm impressed.
posted by empath at 10:18 AM on August 23, 2009

Those are some big ass joints - over a gram each!

Yeah, no kidding. 7 grams is 1/4 oz, so we're talking about nearly rolling that entire thing into four joints? Damn! I want to party with THAT guy.
posted by hippybear at 10:43 AM on August 23, 2009 [8 favorites]

hippybear, he's right here waiting for you.
posted by nosila at 10:55 AM on August 23, 2009

The limit is a half gram for cocaine, the equivalent of about 4 "lines."

Man at NORML needs to change his dealer. That's some weak-assed shit he's been buying.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 11:17 AM on August 23, 2009

The thing about drugs - marijuana mostly, I guess - is that when ingested in strange places it can be accompanied by a strong sense of vulnerability.

Maybe I'm both naive and also wrong, but between the cartels and the cops Mexico doesn't give me that security blanket feeling.

Amsterdam, on the other hand, was a good time.
posted by kbanas at 11:25 AM on August 23, 2009

I hate them for their freedom.
posted by autodidact at 11:35 AM on August 23, 2009 [1 favorite]

They tried to do this a couple years ago and the bush administration basically pressured them into not doing it.
posted by delmoi at 11:42 AM on August 23, 2009

A somewhat common tactic for ratero cops looking for bribes was to plant a small amount of drugs on someone and then telling the person they could enjoy the Mexican penal system or pay a mordita and go on their way. A few friends have had this happen to them. Perhaps this new law will reduce that, but the dirty cops fishing for bribes have other methods to extract bribes.

A friend of mine had something similar happen to him, except according to him he didn't even have drugs planted on him. Someone came up to him and offered to sell him coke, he declined, and moments later he was arrested by the police who drove him around town and eventually to an ATM where he could pay a bribe.
posted by delmoi at 11:45 AM on August 23, 2009

Sounds like if anything this will strengthen the cartels, as it just increases demand but keeps the supply controlled.

This has lways been my reservation about decriminalisation for personal use; I tend to the view that you really need to go the whole hog or not bother.
posted by rodgerd at 11:51 AM on August 23, 2009

Is Mexico metric?
posted by Samuel Farrow at 12:01 PM on August 23, 2009

The whole planet is metric.
posted by Meatbomb at 12:12 PM on August 23, 2009 [5 favorites]

Just the US and those liberty loving rogues in former Burma. Yikes!
posted by Samuel Farrow at 12:16 PM on August 23, 2009

Which is 180 degrees away from the Calderon administration on this issue. Now whether with time municipalities like Tijuana will selectively decide to allow coffeehouses to exist remains to be seen (just as prostitution is illegal in Mexico but tolerated and regulated in 'zonas de tolerancia'). But this law, in and of itself does not make open up any doors to allow coffeehouse-type establishments.

Right, but the point was that neither does the Dutch law. The oft-repeated claim that "weed is legal in Amsterdam" is, at best, an oversimplification of the Dutch policy. Use is legal, as are small amounts for personal use (as far as one can read from the official statements I found), but not sale, distribution, etc. Nothing in what I said called into question whether Mexico might enforce that law more narrowly, it only spelled out the fact that the letters of the respective laws are more similar than many people would assume.
posted by el_lupino at 12:48 PM on August 23, 2009

This really is good for tourism, too, by the way. Lots of us California stoners want to feel a little safer getting high on the beaches and in the rainforests of beautiful Mexico.
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 1:13 PM on August 23, 2009

I'm liberal. I am. But, dammit, I am getting kinda sick of all of this "yey pot!" stuff.

One of my uncles and one of my aunts are both dead. Pot did not kill them, but it was the second or third step down the road. Even while illegal, it was a relatively simple thing to get for them... and when that wasn't good enough, something else would fill the void.

I am not saying that everyone who smokes pot has this problem. I am saying that they did, and many others do and will. Of all behaviors that exist, they exist on a spectrum. Let me draw an ascii example:

[ALWAYS OK!] ----- [USUALLY OK] ----- [SOMETIMES] ----- [USUALLY NOT] ----- [NEVER OK]

Each society draws a line on this spectrum of legal/not legal. That line can be squiggley and inconsistent (vote at 18, drink alcohol at 21?) but there is a line. And wherever you put that line, the very next thing past that line will be "the cool thing to do."

I am thrilled that the first thing past that line, pot, is not likely to get you or others hurt or killed. But if (or when) we move that line, what will replace it? It won't be something less likely to hurt you, certainly.

This is not me saying "I know what's best for you." Not at all. I don't! But as a member of this whole society thing, I ask: are we willing to pay the collective price for moving the line? Examples:

* Higher healthcare costs. Remember, every single uninsured ER trip drives everyone's costs and/or taxes up
* More injury and death from DUI
* The smell. (Walking on a sidewalk behind a smoker sucks. This will suck more.)
* ...more I can't even think of.

I am a firm believer in old-school yankee republican ideals. You do whatever you want, so long as it doesn't hurt me. Well, even if you are doing this in your own house, this ends up hurting society overall -- including me.

(I know I lose a ton of free-thinker cred when I talk about things in this way, but, oh well..)
posted by andreaazure at 1:59 PM on August 23, 2009 [1 favorite]

Andrea,

You gave us some reasons to keep marijuana illegal:

* Higher healthcare costs. Remember, every single uninsured ER trip drives everyone's costs and/or taxes up
* More injury and death from DUI
* The smell. (Walking on a sidewalk behind a smoker sucks. This will suck more.)
* ...more I can't even think of.

Firstly, there is no evidence that decriminalization of marijuana would lead to increased ER visits. In fact, that seems like a strange correlation. I'm trying to think of something which legalizing would lead to more ER visits per capita. Dueling? Driving without seatbelts?

Secondly, while impaired driving under the influence of marijuana will be a problem no matter what it's legal status, by your logic we should also outlaw alcohol, since alcohol-related DUI's account for about 15,000 or so deaths every year.

Thirdly, you do not have the right to imprison others based on the smells they omit (if we did, my dog Franky would be serving several consecutive life sentences).

Fourthly, your addendum of "..more I can't even think of." suggests that you ran out of reasons to dislike something and are hoping for others to give you more reasons to dislike it, rather than be willing to be swayed by evidence to the contrary.

It seems to me that the deaths of your aunt and uncle affected you very deeply, and that you have latched onto marijuana as a visible (albeit vague, as you admit) contributor to their deaths.

I sympathize with the pain that you obviously feel but I'd like to say that in most cases, emotional pain and misplaced blame make for poor public policy. I'd like to suggest that in cases such as these, being a "rational-thinker" is more important than being a "free-thinker".
posted by Avenger at 2:41 PM on August 23, 2009 [3 favorites]

You do whatever you want, so long as it doesn't hurt me.

So why then are you giving your opinion about decriminalizing marijuana in Mexico? If you are not Mexican, and don't like stinky pot smoke around you, don't go to Mexico (or Netherlands, or Canada...). And no worries, I will be sure to stay well clear of you and the society you are a part of!
posted by Meatbomb at 2:46 PM on August 23, 2009

Sorry to hear about your dead family, andreaazure. None of the rest of what you wrote makes any sense whatever, though.

Drugs don't jump up and kill people against their wills. Irresponsible, harmful behaviors continue to be illegal. Substances are only influences on people, not actors themselves.

Behaviors aren't actually cool on the basis of their being illegal or taboo.

Pot isn't the next stop in a danger spectrum of of drugs, legal or otherwise. Alcohol is more legal and more dangerous, see also prescription drugs of many sorts.

Your proclaimed republican ideals sound like authoritariantism they way you describe them. Don't STINK in public? How does my getting high in my house hurt society again?
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 2:52 PM on August 23, 2009

Antidisestablishmentarianist: ...half gram for cocaine, the equivalent of about 4 "lines."
From what I know of drugs, those would be four pretty huge rails. I think they might need to fact check on this one, or my college friends were really cheap dilettantes that weren't doing it right.

Yeah, those'd be absolutely massive lines. The four joints from five grams of pot is pretty ridiculous as well, but then Mexican weed does have a reputation for being schwaggy, seedy rubbish.

The major issue is, as has been pointed out, that the quantities we're talking here are quite small, really. I don't know of anywhere I could buy less than a gram of coke at a time, for example, and a half gram wouldn't be considered a particularly messy night. 15 micrograms of LSD is less than one typical dose, as has been pointed out.

Still, this is a fantastic move in the correct direction, recognising that drug consumers are not criminals, and need not be treated as such. Fingers crossed that this is the beginning of a move toward a generally sane drug policy in Mexico.
posted by Dysk at 2:54 PM on August 23, 2009

Wait, whoever wrote the AP coverage is clearly a journalist, right? Four lines to a half gram is probablyconsidered cautious and careful.
posted by Dysk at 2:57 PM on August 23, 2009 [1 favorite]

andreaazure: You do whatever you want, so long as it doesn't hurt me.

This does not in any way coexist with this:

Well, even if you are doing this in your own house, this ends up hurting society overall -- including me.

You don't have 'old-school yankee republican ideals'. You are a utilitarian socialist. You think we should make things illegal based on nebulous arguments about whether society will be better or worse off with or without them. Faulty arguments, I should add.
posted by Mitrovarr at 3:20 PM on August 23, 2009

Oh, and I bet that utilitarian socialism breaks right down when the argument isn't "Should drugs be legal?" but is instead "Should we tax the rich and use the money to help the poor?" Hey, maybe you have modern Republican values!
posted by Mitrovarr at 3:25 PM on August 23, 2009

I am a firm believer in old-school yankee republican ideals. You do whatever you want, so long as it doesn't hurt me. Well, even if you are doing this in your own house, this ends up hurting society overall -- including me.

I can say that much more about alcohol and tobacco. I don't wish to see them outlawed, however. That never seems to work out very well at all. Marijuana hasn't caused any deaths. Heck, it wasn't even illegal until the 1930s.
posted by krinklyfig at 3:33 PM on August 23, 2009

Yeah, those'd be absolutely massive lines. The four joints from five grams of pot is pretty ridiculous as well, but then Mexican weed does have a reputation for being schwaggy, seedy rubbish.

Only if you're buying what comes over the border, which is bricked up and shipped inside other stuff and sometimes stored in the heat for long periods. If you're local you can get pretty good quality for very, very cheap.
posted by krinklyfig at 3:34 PM on August 23, 2009

A lot of this stuff was discussed in this previous Metafilter thread about Mexican drug decriminalization back in June.
posted by twoleftfeet at 3:40 PM on August 23, 2009

I am not saying that everyone who smokes pot has this problem. I am saying that they did, and many others do and will. Of all behaviors that exist, they exist on a spectrum.

People who have such issues need to be treated as people with medical problems, not criminals. Plenty of people end up in prison who started out smoking cigarettes and drinking. The thing is, whatever is considered deviant behavior will be practiced by people who feel marginalized in their lives, or who have undiagnosed mental health issues, and those people will be looking for an escape. Marijuana is not perfect but it's not really as bad as a lot of other escapes people use. It doesn't kill people, and people who have serious addiction problems will still have those problems whether or not they have used marijuana. It doesn't put them in more danger to take it out of the black market and criminal underground.

Criminalizing the act of taking drugs leads to worse problems for society than letting it be and treating people who are ready for it, and it's far more expensive. Putting people in the prison system largely ruins them for the rest of their lives, because we lack rehabilitative focus and see prison as a matter of warehousing criminals and putting them out of sight rather than dealing with the problem of criminal justice as it relates to society. If we treat the problem of addiction rationally, as a public health issue with harm reduction as a goal, we can get much better outcomes.
posted by krinklyfig at 3:43 PM on August 23, 2009 [1 favorite]

If we treat the problem of addiction rationally, as a public health issue with harm reduction as a goal, we can get much better outcomes.

By the way, we already know this, as there is a lot of evidence in the form of other countries and their particular methods. We're pretty draconian compared to most of our "peer" nations, and we put a lot more people in prison and spend more for it, and our outcomes are generally worse.
posted by krinklyfig at 3:46 PM on August 23, 2009

krinklyfig: Yeah, those'd be absolutely massive lines. The four joints from five grams of pot is pretty ridiculous as well, but then Mexican weed does have a reputation for being schwaggy, seedy rubbish.

Only if you're buying what comes over the border, which is bricked up and shipped inside other stuff and sometimes stored in the heat for long periods. If you're local you can get pretty good quality for very, very cheap.

To be fair, I live in Europe, so I've not had first/hand experience of Mexican weed or anything, really. I'm sure there's good pot to be had in Mexico - the growing conditions are ideal, and there's famed strains like Mexican Haze and so on. I was really just looking for anything that would explain why somebody would get the notion that 5 grams makes 4 joints...
posted by Dysk at 4:14 PM on August 23, 2009

@Meatbomb: What happens in our backyard impacts us. Ask Canada. =) But Mexico can do whatever they want - I have no say there, and I don't live there. I'm not talking about them.

@Mitrovarr: Yes, lets tax the people with the most money more than those with the least. Progressively, in fact. Since I'd like any tax higher than it is now for anything, I will never be admitted into the GOP. =)

re: The smell. I should have said "the second-hand smoke and its health impacts on me." You can't smoke indoors in public accommodations in most states for that very reason. It is less outdoors, sure.

To the larger point... there are many things you can do in your own house that will not impact me. Unfortunately, using drugs is not among them.

Let me try this another way. Here's a strawman deal, would you take it?

Provided that you don't break any other law and are over 18, you can buy pot, smoke it, sell it, grow it. DUI still gets charged, etc. etc. BUT, all you have to do is sign this piece of paper that permanently removes you from any form of public subsidy. This means:

* No Medicare, should you live long enough
* No Welfare, should you fail (or should society fail you)
* No free medical care of any kind
* Etc. etc.

Who is up for it?
posted by andreaazure at 4:26 PM on August 23, 2009

* The smell. (Walking on a sidewalk behind a smoker sucks. This will suck more.)

Indeed, I'm sure many people will suck more, when walking behind a pot smoker on the street. Contact high!
posted by flapjax at midnite at 4:35 PM on August 23, 2009 [1 favorite]

Provided that you don't break any other law and are over 18, you can buy pot, smoke it, sell it, grow it. DUI still gets charged, etc. etc. BUT, all you have to do is sign this piece of paper that permanently removes you from any form of public subsidy. This means:

* No Medicare, should you live long enough
* No Welfare, should you fail (or should society fail you)
* No free medical care of any kind
* Etc. etc.

Who is up for it?

Replace pot with alcohol, tobacco, HFCS, fried foods, refined carbohydrates, and not getting 30 minutes of cardio a day and ask yourself if you're up to it.
posted by The Whelk at 4:54 PM on August 23, 2009 [10 favorites]

The best argument against smoking too much weed is summed up right here.
posted by Flashman at 4:55 PM on August 23, 2009 [1 favorite]

andreaazure, I sure wouldn't, but then again, you've not provided anything like a justification or explanation for why the contents of my roll-ups should affect my societal rights in any manner. Because you don't like pot? Besides, the same ought to be at least doubly true of alcohol and tobacco by your warped logic...

You can't really ask anyone to give up their access (or potential access, as regards most welfare) to public services as a fair exchange for anything other than society's demands on the person - I disagree with it entirely, but a more sane argument could be constructed for giving up some element of taxation for your welfare restrictions, as society's obligation to help you out would be somewhat weakened by your not having an obligation to society.
posted by Dysk at 5:34 PM on August 23, 2009

Flashman, copyright restrictions prevent me from even seeing what video that would've been.
posted by Dysk at 5:37 PM on August 23, 2009

Afroman - 'Because I got high'
posted by Flashman at 5:40 PM on August 23, 2009

We tried banning alcohol. It's been 75+ years, but I don't see it working now either. But if we could, the net positives would be pretty amazing. I'm a realist, though... it isn't happening.

We are banning tobacco, right now. As a country, compare 1979 to 2009 and see all of the places you can't light up.

Hrmm. Did I just save Medicare? Three strikes -- smoke pot or tobacco three times and get caught, well, you don't go to jail. But you don't get Social Security or Medicare, either. (And if that sounds too far fetched, you lose your Pell Grant if you are convincted of any drug offense while a college student...
posted by andreaazure at 6:47 PM on August 23, 2009

I am thrilled that the first thing past that line, pot, is not likely to get you or others hurt or killed. But if (or when) we move that line, what will replace it? It won't be something less likely to hurt you, certainly.

This is not me saying "I know what's best for you." Not at all. I don't! But as a member of this whole society thing, I ask: are we willing to pay the collective price for moving the line? Examples:

* Higher healthcare costs. Remember, every single uninsured ER trip drives everyone's costs and/or taxes up
* More injury and death from DUI

It would be nice if you had some evidence for this pile of assertions and panic mongering. The experience of Portugal seems to contradict your scenarios. Can you prove otherwise?

You are welcome to define yourself as a liberal or anything else at all. Your views as expressed here, peg you as an authoritarian... of course, authoritarians come in all flavors, including left wing.

Provided that you don't break any other law and are over 18, you can buy pot, smoke it, sell it, grow it. DUI still gets charged, etc. etc. BUT, all you have to do is sign this piece of paper that permanently removes you from any form of public subsidy. This means:

* No Medicare, should you live long enough
* No Welfare, should you fail (or should society fail you)
* No free medical care of any kind
* Etc. etc.

Trouble: consuming pot in small quantities - just as drinking alcohol (especially red wine) in small quantities, might be a health positive, not negative (in the case of pot, there is speculation - unproven - based on a few in vitro studies re: alzheimers, and how pot may help prevent it).

Now, if you substitute "pot" in the above with "high fat, sugar and cholesterol junk food" - you got a deal that actually makes sense based on the evidence.

I recommend for you: more eduction, more thought, more research, that way what you write won't seem so idiotic.
posted by VikingSword at 6:51 PM on August 23, 2009

@VikingSword: "More research?" Feel free to click my username and "research" everything I've ever posted on this site. Am I an authoritarian still?

I expressed a dissenting view, and got slammed hard. First time for me on Metafilter, and after five years of posting. I guess I've learned my place.
posted by andreaazure at 7:08 PM on August 23, 2009

andreaazure: We tried banning alcohol. It's been 75+ years, but I don't see it working now either.

We tried banning marijuana. It's been 75+ years, but I still don't see it working now.

I also find it quite funny that you're proposing banning people caught smoking pot from an institution that may be helping to provide the very same substance to patients.
posted by Dysk at 7:10 PM on August 23, 2009

andreaazure, I'm sure none of us mean to 'slam' you - I know I don't. This is just a rather tired debate, with the same problematic speaking points raised again and again. Obviously I can't speak for VikingSword, but regardless of your posting history, ideas, personality, etcetera (none of which I know anything of) I'd agree that doing some more research on this topic mightn't be a bad idea...
posted by Dysk at 7:14 PM on August 23, 2009

Feel free to click my username and "research" everything I've ever posted on this site. Am I an authoritarian still?

Okay!

The rules matter. Either they all do or none of them do.

Yep!
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 7:16 PM on August 23, 2009 [3 favorites]

Andrea, I understand and empathise with your frustration on this issue - but from a well-established, peer-reviewed perspective, harm-minimisation is by far the most effective drug policy there is.

Unfortunately, outlawing something doesn't not make it necessarily hard to get. You said yourself: Even while illegal, it was a relatively simple thing to get for them... and when that wasn't good enough, something else would fill the void.


It sounds like marijuana (which, after all many thousands of people take every year without dying, or adversely affecting their lives) is not the problem here, but rather the addictive personalities of your relatives.

Cigarettes, for example, are a bigger "gateway drug" than marijuana. As is alcohol, and yet because of corporate interests these substances won the legalisation lottery.

I feel I should point out, there is a difference between decriminalisation and legalisation. Sending recreational (or even addicted) drug users to jail does not solve their addictions - or society's problems. In fact in every decent study there is, the jail term serves to a) expand their addictions to more dangerous substances b) enhance the scope of their addictions c) impact their health more adversely than the recreational drug use would and d) equip them with both the knowledge and the motivation to commit more serious crime upon release.

I'm not positing de-criminalisation as a silver bullet, but the current system serves to aggravate the problem, rather than deal with it.
posted by smoke at 7:34 PM on August 23, 2009 [1 favorite]

marijuana (which, after all many thousands millions of people take every year without dying, or adversely affecting their lives)

Edited for accuracy.
posted by hippybear at 8:07 PM on August 23, 2009 [1 favorite]

I do think decriminalization of hard drugs would be a disaster in this country.

Define a "hard drug".
posted by telstar at 8:28 PM on August 23, 2009

andreaazure, I thought I was reasonably careful, when I said "Your views as expressed here, peg you as an authoritarian..." - i.e. based on the views you expressed here (in this thread), you seem authoritarian. Now, it is possible that on other issues you are not - and if I indeed went over your posting history, I might agree - but that wouldn't alter my characterization of your views on this issue. And I don't mean to "slam" you - just exchanging views, no hard feelings.
posted by VikingSword at 9:03 PM on August 23, 2009

I overreacted, and I'm sorry. The recommendation of "more eduction, more thought, more research, that way what you write won't seem so idiotic" stung more than I could take, I s'pose.

Ahh well. Welcome to the Internets. Where people disagree.
posted by andreaazure at 10:16 PM on August 23, 2009

Andrea, the point everyone's trying to make to you here is that there's just no evidence that pot kills you or is in any way bad for you -- that's why tying health care benefits to pot makes no sense. Nor is there much evidence that pot causes you to try harder drugs. This is what we are suggesting you research. Whole societies have decriminalized pot and did not see a rise in cocaine-related deaths as a result. Some of us are a bit snippy because we've had this debate before many times, and the facts are all very clear.
posted by creasy boy at 10:33 PM on August 23, 2009

We are banning tobacco, right now. As a country, compare 1979 to 2009 and see all of the places you can't light up.

We're not in the process of banning tobacco, we are reducing the places where it is acceptable/legal to smoke tobacco products. This is reasonable; research shows that second-hand smoke is dangerous to the public health. There is a great difference in the meaning of these statements and you should be ashamed for being so misleading.

Compare tobacco use to the huge swath of geography that has banned the consumption of alcohol: I can't drink a glass of wine in a county, state, or federal park; I can't drink a beer on a public sidewalk; or as a passenger in a vehicle on a road; or in my own front yard. I can't buy vodka on Sunday or beer after midnight. While I make my own beer (and some of it is pretty good), I can't sell it at the farmer's market next to my unregulated tomatoes and pickled green beans (although botulinum toxin is far more dangerous than ethanol, methanol, or ethylene glycol). I can't legally ship a bottle of wine from one state to the next and I can't legally buy a bottle of beer in Virginia to enjoy in Maryland. But I can have a smoldering Parliament between my fingers in any of the situations. This is, to me, a steaming load of bullshit.

How does it hurt anyone for me to sell my (safe and delicious) beer at the farmer's market? Who is harmed if I walk to the liquor store and buy a bottle of tequila on Sunday? How does it hurt anyone for me to be drunk on my front porch? What's the harm in buying a sixpack at 3am? Why can't I distill my own brandy?¹ Why is it forbidden to mail a 10% ethanol solution to my brother-in-law when it's perfectly acceptable to mail more toxic lithium-ion batteries?
1. So you know, I'm studying biochemistry and regularly handle, extract, and purify substances much more dangerous than ethanol.

Hopefully you'll think about the big picture, realize that we are not in the process of banning tobacco, and retract your statement. While alcohol is stringently regulated, no reasonable person would say that it is on the road to being banned in the US. I have already betrayed my perspective on this issue, but I'd like for you to respond to any of this so I can see where you're coming from. Specifically, I believe that the federal and state governments are hooked and addicted to tax revenues from alcohol and tobacco sales. If anything, I believe, tobacco sales will migrate to state stores where taxes are more readily captured while public tobacco use will be forced into a locale-based permit issue, like alcohol, where the permits fees and tax revenues are collected by the state government. Regardless, there is no observable momentum for "banning," as you say, of the use or sale of tobacco products in the US.
posted by peeedro at 10:37 PM on August 23, 2009 [2 favorites]

Define a "hard drug".

The good tequila.
posted by rokusan at 3:33 AM on August 24, 2009

In this oft-repeated debate, few, if any voices speak of the positive effects of pot use. That is a shame, as they are relevant to any proper utilitarian assessment.
posted by fcummins at 5:35 AM on August 24, 2009 [2 favorites]

I overreacted, and I'm sorry.

That kicks ass. It is understandable to me why you got all het up. It is admirable of you to come back and illustrate cool.
posted by YoBananaBoy at 7:24 AM on August 24, 2009

Great, we're officially surrounded by places that have better drug policies than us.

Don't worry, we're catching up to you here on north side.
posted by not_that_epiphanius at 8:58 AM on August 24, 2009

"the" north side (and no, I haven't smoked today - maybe I should!)
posted by not_that_epiphanius at 8:59 AM on August 24, 2009

I cannot for the life of me understand why we (the U.S.) don't legalize marijana, tax the hell out of it like we do cigarettes, and use the proceeds to fund drug and alcohol rehab programs.

Marijuana is not, as far as any reliable studies have been able to demonstrate, inherently dangerous. Correlated dangers, such as impaired reaction times, are and can be dealt with under laws such as DUI and reckless driving, for cases where that would apply.

But then again, I don't see a net positive from any laws that specifically address what one is able to do to/with one's own body that does not have a direct negative effect (or strong potential for same) on others. Banning or limiting usage of various substances by people prior to the legal age of adulthood/full legal culpability/presumed age of rational action in terms of legal consent makes sense to me. Banning or limiting usage when operating heavy machinery or any form of transportation or when engaged in other activities in which there is serious potential to harm another (providing medical care, piercing, tattooing) or create a significant public nuisance (drunken revelers blocking traffic) all make sense to me. Prohibing adults from ingesting anything short of environmental toxins on private property that belongs to them or where they have the owner's permission to underake such actions is offensive to me.
posted by notashroom at 2:02 PM on August 24, 2009 [1 favorite]

"Criminalizing the act of taking drugs leads to worse problems for society than letting it be and treating people who are ready for it, and it's far more expensive. "

Totally agree. Fighting against drugs doesn't seem to be the solution, does it? Or have you seen any improvement in the last ...30 years or so? What I find more worrysome in this case is that Mexican govenment apparently used a pandemium as a decoy for public opinion to quietly pass the new law. We just woke up one morning and there it was. Not good.
posted by kyraline at 6:54 AM on September 14, 2009

* No Medicare, should you live long enough
* No Welfare, should you fail (or should society fail you)
* No free medical care of any kind
* Etc. etc.

Who is up for it?

Do I get out paying into Medicare too? And the portion of my taxes that go to welfare? Because I think plenty of people would fake being potheads to get that deal, especially a lot of old-school yankee republicans.
posted by and hosted from Uranus at 8:21 AM on September 14, 2009 [1 favorite]

Wow...I'm really late to the party, eh? I blame kyraline. And weed.
posted by and hosted from Uranus at 8:46 AM on September 14, 2009