According to today’s New York Times the Mexican government has “legalized” drug possession. Really? Perhaps someone at the NYT ought to inform Mexican President Felipe Calderon.
First of all, let’s explore the various connotations evoked by the word “legal.” After all, without proper context this term can mean many different things to many different people.
Oranges are legal. So are alcohol and tobacco. Aspirin is legal, as are thousands of prescription medications — including highly dangerous drugs like oxycodone. Yet while all of these products are ‘legal’ — in the sense that they may be lawfully produced and purchased by certain consumers — their distribution and possession are governed by vastly different regulatory controls.
Oranges, for instance, are widely available to all consumers, regardless of age. People can even grow their own, if they so desire. Aspirin is also readily available to the general public as an ‘over-the-counter’ medication, whereas prescription drugs may only be purchased at a state-governed pharmacy by those who possess written authorization from a licensed physician.
The sale and possession of alcohol and tobacco are also legal, yet both substances are heavily taxed and tightly controlled. State-imposed age restrictions place limits on who can legally purchase and use both products, and federal laws also specify how and where these products may be advertised. Federal, state, and county laws also impose strict controls regarding where these products can be legally purchased. Adults may legally produce certain types of alcohol, like beer and wine, privately in their home — if their production is intended for their own personal consumption and not for sale to the public. By contrast, federal and state laws tightly regulate the commercial production of any type of alcohol.
So then, when the NYT‘s headline asserts that drug possession in Mexico is “legal,” do they mean that marijuana is now legal like oranges are legal? Or like alcohol? Or like prescription drugs?
Unfortunately, the answer is ‘none of the above.’ In fact, no definition of ‘legal’ that I’m aware of resembles Mexico’s new drug possession scheme. The Associated Press explains:
The new law [Editor’s note: NORML initially reported on Mexico’s impending legal change this past May.] sets out maximum “personal use” amounts for drugs, also including LSD and methamphetamine. People detained with those quantities no longer face criminal prosecution.
… 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.” For other drugs, the limits are 50 milligrams of heroin, 40 milligrams for methamphetamine and 0.015 milligrams for LSD.
Anyone caught with drug amounts under the new personal-use limit will be encouraged to seek treatment, and for those caught a third time treatment is mandatory.
… “This is not legalization, this is regulating the issue and giving citizens greater legal certainty,” said Bernardo Espino del Castillo of the attorney general’s office.
So let’s review, shall we? Under Mexico’s new law:
* The private production of cannabis will remain a criminal offense;
* The commercial production of cannabis will remain criminal offense (and this production will continue to be monopolized by criminal enterprises/drug cartels);
* The commercial distribution of cannabis to consumers will remain a criminal offense (and this distribution will continue to be monopolized by criminal enterprises/drug cartels);
* The private possession of cannabis in quantities greater than “four joints” will remain a criminal offense;
* 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.’)
Does any of this sound like “legalization” (or even “regulation,” to quote the Mexican attorney general’s office) to you? I didn’t think so. A small step in the right direction, perhaps — but legalization? Not a chance — no matter how you define it!
Thanks Lea, # 43.
L.E.A.P. has just invited me to be a speaker and help set up town meetingsto educate people on the follishness of prohibition. I have accepted and am awaiting their reply. I’ll keep you all posted.
While the NYT item is a fudge and thus ill-informs, what merit one can take from this is that it sends a clear message to all… possession is not intoxication and not all use is misuse. In that we (the global community) should take heart.
That said, the right to the possession of any drug is a barren right without the right to sell, store, process, transport, cultivate or manufacture.
New Zealand has made such regulations for recreational psychoactive soft drugs with age of consent, advertising, labeling and place of sale proviso’s and has done so in a UN compliant manner. (The law was given Royal assent the day the new conservative right Prime Minister John Key was elected!)
The NYT has ready access to the former Prime Minister of NZ, the Rt Hon Helen Clark as she is now a resident of NY city and be contacted over at the UN.
With such easy access perhaps the NYT might consider and compare the wisdom of such a legislative model to that of Mexico.
With the word legalization being absent from so many prominent dictionaries, it should be no surprise that the NYT may have had issues with using the word correctly. 😉
hey fellow consumers,can someone tell me what happens to workplace drug testing where, decriminalization is concerned?if we push for that as a way to forward legalization, can my employer still tell me what to do in my private life?
That’s kinda de facto the way it has been in Mexico for a while. Reports over the past years reveal widespread corruption among the police who cooperate with the drug cartels–hey it’s better than being murdered. Those police units and military units who are fighting the cartels are concerned with keeping the big fish under control, arresting and handing over a token whale for Captain Ahab, also known as the U.S. Meanwhile, the drug cartels stay in business as different cartel leaders and different cartels emerge. The U.S. should have at least legalized cannabis years ago before the ship(s) of state started to sink into the mire caused by prohibition.
But, Captain Ahab has to have his whale!
Can we please get past this Mody Dick mentality of the prohitionists?!
#54 thts wht im wonderin too
To poster #49, who said:
“Can anyone tell me why this is the way to go? Is that what happened with alcohol. Decrimed then legalized? Or was it an outright legalization?”
Well, sort of.
Alcohol prohibition wasn’t immediately repealed either. In January of 1933, Congress passed the Cullen-Harrison Act, which legalized beverages of 3.2% alcohol by weight or under. However, beverages with an alcohol concentration higher than 3.2% were still prohibited for almost another year. This law proved to be insufficient, and alcohol prohibition (the 18th Amendment) was repealed by the 21st Amendment on December 5, 1933.
#54 fla activist Says:
August 23rd, 2009 at 10:01 am
“hey fellow consumers,can someone tell me what happens to workplace drug testing where, decriminalization is concerned?if we push for that as a way to forward legalization, can my employer still tell me what to do in my private life?”
RE: fla activist,
– I think this would really
depend upon the employer and specific-description.
– Some places test SOLEY because of stipulations
related to doing business with the federal-government,
(and would not test otherwise),
whereas others would continue to test,
even in absence of federal requirements,
due to JOB-SPECIFIC safety-concerns,
(transportation, shipping, heavy-equipment operators
and hazardous-materials handling, for example…).
– Perhaps,
more accurate test-methods
will make unscietific, zero-tolerance
testing a thing of the past,
(Tests which determine present-impairment
based upon current levels of THC, instead of
relying upon weeks-old, inactive metabolites,
like hair follicle and urine-testing do…).
Our bittersweet friend…technology.
#54 fla activist Says:
August 23rd, 2009 at 10:01 am
“hey fellow consumers,can someone tell me what happens to workplace drug testing where, decriminalization is concerned?if we push for that as a way to forward legalization, can my employer still tell me what to do in my private life?”
RE: fla activist,
– I think this would really
depend upon the employer and specific
JOB-description.
– Some places test SOLEY because of stipulations
related to doing business with the federal-government,
(and would not test otherwise),
whereas others would continue to test,
even in absence of federal requirements,
due to JOB-SPECIFIC safety-concerns,
(transportation, shipping, heavy-equipment operators
and hazardous-materials handling, for example…).
– Perhaps,
more accurate test-methods
will make unscietific, zero-tolerance
testing a thing of the past,
(Tests which determine present-impairment
based upon current levels of THC, instead of
relying upon weeks-old, inactive metabolites,
like hair follicle and urine-testing do…).
Our bittersweet friend…technology.
Great News, Good to see someone is taking logical steps in these dire times. I would support legalization of all drugs, but this is a good step. Hopefully it doesn’t take a full on war in the US to make positive steps such as these. Peace, Legalize Hemp.
#51, Mark, Glenolden, PA: You’re welcome dear heart, and thank you for keeping up the Good fight.
Everyone: Channel your energies in the direction towards the end of Prohibition of Cannabis. As a whole we cannot accept anything other than the end of slavery to the guberment.
#54 fla activist Says:
August 23rd, 2009 at 10:01 am
“hey fellow consumers,can someone tell me what happens to workplace drug testing where, decriminalization is concerned?if we push for that as a way to forward legalization, can my employer still tell me what to do in my private life?”
RE: fla activist,
– I think this would really
depend upon the employer and specific
JOB-description.
– Some places test SOLEY because of stipulations
related to doing business with the federal-government,
(and would not test otherwise…),
whereas others would continue to test,
even in absence of federal requirements,
due to JOB-SPECIFIC safety-concerns,
(transportation, shipping, heavy-equipment operators
and hazardous-materials handling, for example…).
– Perhaps,
more accurate test-methods
will make UNSCIENTIFIC, zero-tolerance
testing a thing of the past,
(Tests which determine present-impairment
based upon current levels of THC, instead of
relying upon weeks-old, inactive metabolites,
like hair follicle and urine-testing do…).
Our bittersweet friend…technology.
~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~
NORML Admin:
(PLEASE DELETE PRVIOUS TWO POSTS…
TYPO’S and DRPPED-LETTERS DON’T BECOME
APPARENT UNTIL after COMMENT IS SENT)
`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`
A foreign country making its own rules regarding drug legality toward its own people, and finally rebuking the seemingly omnipotent drug war strong-arm of the grand ‘ol USA.
A step in the right direction as far as I am concerned.
well said ANNAH!
# Annah Says:
August 21st, 2009 at 4:47 pm
The “decriminalization” concept is such a joke. Like a bad joke, actually. Do they think they’re appeasing folks who want cannabis legalized? Is that the point? Are they trying to get people to feel comfortable with wandering around with “four joints” in their pocket so they can get more leads on suppliers? Don’t they get it? Don’t they understand that this is doing no more good than full criminalization? What’s going to stop cops from inquiring, “Where’d you get that?”
Granted, it looks like a “first step” toward legalization, but I believe it is not. I also think that Mexico would not do this without the US Government’s stamp of approval and that makes me think that both governments are trying to appease legalization proponents in an effort to quell the continued rise of people asking for true legalization.
The only cure to the sickness that is prohibition and drug cartel violence is legalization, taxation and real regulation. Period.
corporations do drug tests for a couple reasons:
1. Dangerous positions
2. Government tax incentives to do so
3. An easy out to not have to pay out through insurance, disability, unemployment, or other accidents that may be totally unrelated to MJ b/c you could have smoked it a month ago and had an accident today.
I think 3 is the worst one of all. I have seen too many employees lose a job b/c they got hurt and they popped on a piss test a month after smoking pot. When I dealt with accidents at my old job I would always make sure the employee understood that they would be required to take a drug test if I filed an accident report. So many said yes they understood that and then popped on a piss test and I never seen them again. FIRED!
The government nor an employer should have the right to tell you what you can and can’t do in your free time. Guess that’s why the same employer was full of alcoholics, coke heads, and pill heads.
I got really lucky once. I had an employer once that was insane about drug testing but I was part of a weekend skeletal crew and there were no nurses on duty during those shifts so I was not piss tested for a year. After a year the company would pick you up and hire you as a permanent employee (a poor excuse so they could start your time, vacation, and benefits over at zero after working for them for a year. Well with that came another drug test b/c technically I wasn’t a permanent employee yet. Well B/c I knew this I stopped smoking in January so I’d be clean for my Mar 1 deadline. Well they caled me in for a piss test mid February and I popped (but it was very faint. I explained the situation that I quit a month ago blah blah blah, and b/c of this I was going to lose my job? They said well you must be a good worker b/c you managed to make it through the first year which many do not. They said “they’d have to send it to the lab” and I’d have to sit home till the results came back. A week later, they told me to get my ass back to work and leave the “childish stuff” behind. I don’t think they sent it to a lab. I think they “lost” some paperwork on my behalf. I was so thankful but I realize that this is like a one in a million case. Most companies are very “black and white” with no gray area. Luckily the town I was working in is full of alcoholics, pill heads, and tokers, so I think they were used to dealing with it. My ex did the whistleblower thing and they let her go to rehab in exchange for keeping her job and that was for coke.
Another story about an employer. Chaparral and Robalo Boats was bought out by an oil company in the late 90’s and became a public company. When a company goes public every dime has to be tracked b/c of shareholders, drug tests usually ensue b/c of the tax breaks and it makes the company look good. Well after about 3 months of that and scaring everybody to death, people were quitting like crazy. The former owner but still CEO William S. Pegg stood up to the Oil company and said ” look a here, you are running off all my supervisors, plant managers, and employees. This is a small town with a small employee pool and if you keep doing this, we cannot build any boats.” This coming from the same man that got caught twice for shipping coke out in the boat fuel tanks and used to come in to work coked out of his gourd before the company went public. After that, drug tests were only brought out for pre-employment and post accident. Amazing how dwindling profits cause a company to change its mind. Its a little different in small town America b/c there is nothing for these folks to do except get drunk, do drugs, and make babies and those who DON’T do something are the minority.
Come on! Don’t be so niave that this isn’t a huge step in the right direction. I would gladly take this policy in place of current policy. While it is a far cry from legalization (remember folks, the nyt is about profit and flashy headlines not some kind of PSA). With any hope regulators in both countries will realize that loosening marijuana policy will not result in the sky falling and even manditory treamrnt for casual users is a tremendous waste of money. Get real guys. We’re not going to erase 75 years of policy and culture overnight. (added by Mobile using Mippin)
well its been a while since i logged on and i just caught this one, but what i dont get is if you can have up to 4 joints but how does every one get it legally since distribution, sale, manufacture, or otherwise are oddly enough illegal?
i mean it is a BIG step in the right direction, just not that well thought out. i mean the do have colleges in mexico right?
well common fucking sense is not that difficult to come up with.
i mean i can have that lil bit of weed in my pocket but how do i go about getting it well legally anyway thats like taking one of us to the cup and saying enjoy yourself but you cant smoke
seems like el presidente may need to lay off the jose for a while
any way this is the wolfman signing off till next time
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
So now the cops can just PLANT MORE than 5gms of pot on you and then arrest you UNTIL you pay them off in bribes…..